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

With only a title annotation, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the return composition and the party-scoping access rule, but says nothing about pagination, rate limits, or other operational traits an agent might need for a listing operation.

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?

A single well-formed sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and the return content before the alternate listing mode. No wasted words; slightly dense but appropriately sized.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, yet the description still summarizes them helpfully. For a simple 4-parameter read tool this is nearly complete, with only operational details (pagination/limits) absent.

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 all four parameters (state, api_key, agreement_id, include_dormant) are already documented in the schema, including the empty-agreement_id-means-list convention. The description adds no parameter detail beyond that, so 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 uses a specific verb (Read) and resource (entry/entries), and it names exactly what is returned (agreement + receipts + gates + evidence gaps). It also clarifies the dual mode — fetch one entry vs. list entries you are a party to — which cleanly distinguishes it from sibling mutation tools like entry.accept, entry.file, and entry.reject.

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 implies the two usage modes (single read when an agreement is targeted, list otherwise) and notes the party-scoping constraint, but it never states explicit when-to-use conditions or names alternatives. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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