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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals that this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful context by calling the register 'sealed' and indicating that it includes both draft and published statuses, which suggests immutability and completeness. However, it does not describe output format, ordering, or any additional constraints.

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 entire description is a single dense sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core subject ('manifest standard's sealed artifact register') and then lists the distinguishing data fields efficiently.

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?

For a parameterless read-only tool, the description is largely complete: it names the resource and specifies the main fields returned. Since there is no output schema, it would be slightly stronger if it explicitly stated that the tool returns a list or map of artifacts, but the word 'register' implies this sufficiently.

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 tool accepts zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to confuse an agent. The description's mention of the returned fields provides enough context for what the tool exposes, and with no parameters, the baseline of 4 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 identifies the tool as a register of the manifest standard's artifacts and enumerates the specific fields returned: path, canonical IRI, draft/published status, and SHA-256 per contract file. This goes well beyond the tool name and makes the tool's subject clear, though it does not explicitly state a verb like 'returns' or 'lists'.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as manifest.get, directory.get, or facts.latest. The description implies it is the artifact register, but it does not state when an agent should select it or when it should prefer another sibling tool.

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