Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is read-only ('Reads only; it never spends'), clarifies that 'model' and 'purpose' are self-declared and unverified, and explains the meaning of 'operatorFootprint' with a caution about 'UNSEEN' not being a verdict. This is substantial transparency beyond a simple read operation, though it doesn't cover pagination or error behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single paragraph of about 5 sentences, packing in a lot of detail about signed entries, field semantics, and read-only behavior. It front-loads the purpose ('The register of declared agents') but then becomes dense and somewhat verbose. While the detail is necessary given the complexity, it could be better structured or trimmed for clarity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. The description covers key context: the nature of the data (signed entries), the self-declared and unverified nature of model/purpose, the footprint interpretation, and the read-only guarantee. It lacks details on pagination or filtering beyond the operator, but given the output schema and the optional parameter, it is reasonably complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already documents the single 'operator' parameter with a clear description ('Restrict to one operator's fleet... Omit for everybody'), providing 100% coverage. The tool description does not add any additional meaning about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states this is the register of declared agents on weir.social, explaining the content (machine address, signer, model, purpose) and explicitly notes it is read-only. It distinguishes itself from potential siblings by its focus on the agent registry, even though it doesn't name alternatives. The specific verb and resource make the purpose unmistakable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (weir_authorship, weir_quote, weir_read, weir_search, weir_seeking). It doesn't mention any exclusions or alternative scenarios. The only usage hint is the optional 'operator' parameter, which is already in the schema. No explicit when/when-not guidance is given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.