Thermodynamic research receipt

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so 'Read-only, zero-auth, no external side effects' largely restates structured data. 'Zero-auth' is genuine added context not present in annotations, and the receipt/verification-label mention hints at output shape, but nothing is said about scope, limits, or what the evidence corpus contains.

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, front-loaded with the usage condition before the safety and return notes. Efficient, though the safety sentence duplicates annotations and could have carried new information instead.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the return, and 'a JSON research receipt with verification labels' is thin — a caller cannot anticipate the receipt's shape or what the labels mean. For a zero-param read-only tool this is adequate but not fully complete.

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 is no parameter semantics to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds nothing here because nothing is needed.

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 activity (exploring thermodynamic/stochastic AI-chip research) and the mechanism (public transcript evidence), plus the return type. It is clearly distinguishable from generic status/doctor siblings, though it never names a nearer alternative like telos.research.seed or telos.proof.research.

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?

'Use when exploring thermodynamic or stochastic AI-chip research' gives a triggering condition, which is more than most siblings offer. However there are no exclusions and no explicit routing between this and the adjacent research/proof tools, so the agent must infer when this is preferred over telos.research.seed.

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