published_vector

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the output is a fixed published fixture expected to round-trip to [PASS] byte-for-byte and works offline, which tells the agent the result is deterministic and self-contained.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the vector identifier and its section reference, with no filler. The middle list of payload components is information-dense but slightly crowded against the usage clause.

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-value documentation is not required, yet the description still summarizes the payload composition and the expected verification outcome. For a zero-parameter, read-only fixture tool, an agent has everything needed to select and call it correctly.

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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds nothing about inputs, and instead spends its words describing the returned payload, which is the relevant semantic content for a no-arg tool.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (return the published conformance vector AE128-VECTOR-1) and enumerates its payload components (authority, organ key, lease, 128-byte frame). It also names the sibling it feeds into (verify_envelope), so an agent can distinguish it from derive_route_shard and parse_envelope without opening a schema.

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 second sentence gives a clear use context: feed the output into verify_envelope, expecting [PASS] byte-for-byte, offline. That establishes the tool as a deterministic test fixture. However, it does not state when NOT to use it or contrast it with the other siblings (derive_route_shard, parse_envelope).

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