agora_knowledge_ledger

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does add genuinely useful semantics by defining the epistemic state as 'receipt-based' rather than a truth score or popularity metric, which shapes how the agent reads the result. It stops short of stating that this is a side-effect-free read, whether any auth or scope is required, or how the ledger is scoped.

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 tight sentences with the action front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence is not padding: it preempts a plausible misreading of the returned state, so every sentence earns its place.

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, and with no parameters the surface is small. What is missing is routing context against the many sibling knowledge tools and any statement about read-only behavior or auth, which leaves the agent under-informed for selection even if invocation is trivial.

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 nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not introduce any phantom arguments or filtering syntax, which is correct for a no-argument getter.

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 ('Return') and a specific named resource ('MAGNA Knowledge Ledger summary'), which is more than a tautology. However, it gives no differentiation from closely named siblings such as agora_knowledge_snapshot and agora_knowledge_sources, leaving the agent to guess which ledger-like view it needs.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite conditions, and no named alternative among the ~70 siblings. The clause 'not a truth score or popularity result' clarifies interpretation of the output but does not tell the agent when to call this versus agora_knowledge_snapshot.

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