about

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose key behavioral traits: it frames itself as a trust and limitations resource, including 'what it does not do.' It does not explicitly state that it is read-only or has no side effects, but the informational nature is clear.

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 short sentences with no waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the usage instruction follows immediately, making it easy for an agent to parse.

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 the description need not explain return values. It sufficiently covers what the tool is for and when to read it, which is complete for a zero-parameter about tool.

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 has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately does not attempt to describe inputs.

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 clearly states the tool's subject: it explains what the server is, what it does not do, and how it can be trusted. This distinguishes it from sibling verdict tools like check_draft and check_policy_only, though it does not use a conventional verb+resource phrasing.

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?

It gives explicit usage context: 'Read this before relying on any verdict it returns.' This tells the agent when to call it relative to the verdict-producing siblings, but does not name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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