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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only and idempotent, so the description's job is to add behavioral depth, and it does. It discloses that the evidence digest is an RFC 8785 SHA-256 of the envelope, that every read is verified against the artifact, that mismatches cause refusal, and that raw page bytes are not returned. These are non-obvious behaviors an agent would not know from annotations alone.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and each subsequent sentence adds a distinct, useful fact: resource twin, digest format, verification behavior, and a content limitation. It is somewhat dense with jargon like 'RFC 8785 SHA-256' and 'canonical_evidence/1', but no sentence is wasted.

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 zero-parameter read tool with a rich annotation set and an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains what the tool accesses, how integrity is checked, what happens on mismatch, and what is excluded. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly and interpret its behavior without further investigation.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by identifying the exact resource being read (canonical_evidence/1 envelopes and capture records) even though no input parameters are needed, which helps the agent understand what the fixed invocation actually returns.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Read the evidence bundle behind the Vuori Kore Short listing claims.' It further distinguishes itself by naming the exact backing resource URI and framing itself as the 'Tool twin' of that evidence resource, which separates it from sibling tools like get_claim that serve the claim itself rather than the evidence bundle.

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 intended use is implied: call this tool when you need the evidence bundle behind the claim, and it does state a limitation ('Raw page bytes are not served'). However, it never explicitly names an alternative or states when not to use it, so the guidance relies on inference rather than a clear routing rule.

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