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

Annotations provide no safety hints, so the description carries full burden. The word 'query' and 'returns' strongly imply a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state 'no modifications' or disclose rate limits, permissions, or other behavioral details beyond what the schema provides. The tamper-evidence context adds value but is not comprehensive.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately identifies the tool's operator audience and action. Every phrase adds context ('hash-chained', 'tamper-evident', 'all platform actions') without redundancy. Ideal conciseness.

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?

Given that an output schema exists and the input schema is fully documented, the description effectively covers the core purpose and unique features. It does not mention filtering or admin_key requirements, but those are in the schema. A small gap is the lack of guidance on when to use it, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a query tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, but it does contextualize the overall purpose (governance audit) which indirectly relates to event_type. No extra detail is provided, so a 3 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 states a specific verb ('query') and resource ('SHA-256 hash-chained governance audit trail'), and clarifies it returns 'tamper-evident records of all platform actions,' which distinguishes it from sibling admin tools like admin.reviews or admin.stats. This is a clear, specific statement of purpose.

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 gives context that this is for querying governance audit trails, implying use when an audit of platform actions is needed. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools, earning a 4 rather than 5.

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