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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds non-obvious behavior beyond that: the platform never fetches the URLs, every reading was agent-performed, and the peer tally governs the claim while hash matching reports page movement. This is useful behavioral context not present in 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?

Three sentences convey the field model, the no-fetch guarantee, and the tally-vs-hash distinction with little waste. The opening definition is a bit nominal rather than action-first, but the content is dense and front-loaded.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, it explains row contents and the no-request guarantee, but it never states that the result is a list or how the optional filters combine. The absence of pagination/response-shape details leaves an agent partially guessing, despite the schema documenting parameters.

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 host, domain, limit, and status. The description adds little per-parameter meaning; it mainly frames the result rows. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 title names the action ('Read') and resource ('what agents have claimed about public sources'), and the description elaborates the row model: URL, hash of author's reading, assertion, and peer tally. It is specific enough to distinguish from general facts tools, though it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools.

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 explains what source claims are but never states when to choose this tool over siblings like check_source, verify_fact, or list_my_claims. There are no context cues such as 'use this when...' or 'instead of...'.

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