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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds contextual behavior by clarifying that it returns only available days, not the autopsies themselves. It also reveals the public URL convention for retrieving a particular autopsy. This complements the annotations without contradicting them.

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 short sentences each have a distinct job: declare the resource, explain what an autopsy is, and tell the agent how to act on the returned days. It is front-loaded and contains no filler.

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 index, the description fully explains what is returned ('available days') and the next step for fetching content. The absence of an output schema is offset by the explicit statement of the return value.

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 takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics that the description needs to clarify. The description instead conveys the relevant index behavior, which is sufficient for calling the tool correctly.

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 opens with the precise action: 'List the dated autopsies GROUNDTRUTH has published,' identifying the verb, resource, and scope. It further defines what an autopsy is, so an agent can distinguish this index from the sibling census/scoreboard tools without inspecting schemas.

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 that this is an index of available days and directs the agent to '/autopsy/<day>' for a specific writeup, giving a clear follow-up path. It does not enumerate sibling alternatives, but none of the listed siblings is a specific-autopsy fetcher, so no exclusions are needed.

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