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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description goes well beyond them by adding cost ('0.003 USDC'), determinism, evidence-boundedness, signed output, and the explicit guardrail that it does not assert misconduct. These are meaningful behavioral disclosures beyond static annotations.

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 extremely compact, front-loaded with the action, and every segment earns its place: purpose, cost, and behavioral guarantees. There is no redundant restatement of the tool name or title.

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?

The output schema and annotations cover return values and safety, so the description does not need to repeat them. It supplies cost, determinism, and signing behavior, which are important invocation considerations. The main residual gap is that 'trust vector' is domain-specific and never defined, leaving some ambiguity about exact input expectations.

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?

There are zero formal parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description adds context that inputs should be 'comparable trust vectors,' which is useful given the highly permissive schema. It does not define the internal shape of those vectors, but with no required parameters this is a minor gap.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Detect material drift between comparable trust vectors.' The qualifier 'without asserting misconduct' adds useful semantic precision. It does not explicitly distinguish the tool from sibling detectors, but the verb and object make the core purpose clear.

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 phrase 'comparable trust vectors' implies the intended use case, and the cost note gives an operational constraint. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like signed_result_comparator or service_gap_detector, nor any when-not-to-use conditions.

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