Query the verification ledger

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the filtering behavior but does not mention that all parameters are optional (behavior when no filters are applied), how filters combine (AND/OR semantics), or the return format/pagination. It also omits sessionId as a filterable field, which is part of the schema.

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, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the operation ('Filter') and directly states the key criteria. No filler or redundant information.

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?

The tool is relatively simple with 3 optional parameters and no output schema, so a brief description can be adequate. However, the description does not mention sessionId, does not explain default behavior when no filters are applied, and provides no output format details. These omissions make it incomplete for fully guiding an agent.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides useful meaning for two of three parameters: 'claim substring' clarifies claimContains as a substring match, and 'result' maps to the enum. However, it omits sessionId entirely and does not explain how the filters interact, leaving a gap in parameter understanding.

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 'Filter' on a clear resource 'ledger entries' and specifies the filtering criteria ('claim substring and/or result'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ledger_record (which likely records entries) and ledger_snapshot (which likely captures snapshots).

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 a query/filter use case but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ledger_snapshot or recall. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool references, leaving the agent without enough contextual decision support.

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