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

Annotations already declare this as a safe, idempotent, non-destructive read, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new behavior: it requires a SpaceNexus API key (free tier sufficient), which the annotations do not convey, and it details the shape of returned records including revision history.

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 auth requirement, data shape and filtering/paging instructions are front-loaded in two dense sentences with no filler. The middle enumeration of fields is long but each clause earns its place by describing the record; a minor cost is that it reads as a run-on.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so well, listing quote, speaker, date, stated/normalised deadline, status, outcome, source and revisions. Auth, filtering and paging are all covered; only ordering/recency of results and behavior at high offsets are left unstated.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters, including enums and bounds. The description restates the filter facets ('party, status, claim type or words') and offset paging but adds no syntax, format or edge-case detail beyond the schema — the baseline 3 applies.

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 names the specific resource (SpaceNexus Promise Ledger entries) and enumerates what each entry contains, so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves — dated public commitments with quotes, deadlines, status and outcomes. It implicitly separates itself from launch-oriented siblings by entity type, but never names a sibling or an explicit verb like 'list/retrieve'.

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?

It states the entry point ('Filter by party, status, claim type or words; page with offset') and an auth prerequisite, which implies when the tool is useful. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative for adjacent data (e.g. launch_ledger_record or company_lookup), so usage is only implied.

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