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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: extract presence suppresses in-process settlement rows and makes extraSettlements refused, scope is populated only when an extract declared one, an empty list is still accepted, and mismatched account/rail pairings are the correct reading rather than a defect. It also enumerates the validation failures that surface as 'extract: ...' before reconciliation.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the return shape (audit/scope/counts). The extract clause runs long and nests several conditions, but each carries decision-relevant information rather than filler.

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 8 optional nested parameters and no output schema, the description carries the return contract itself (balanced vs findings, scope, counts) and the key cross-parameter interactions, which is most of what an agent needs. Minor gap: it does not characterize cost, determinism, or how findings are enumerated.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning the schema does not: extraSettlements is refused beside an extract (except an empty list), issuerTrust absence falls back to the server's own key, and manifest without manifestTrust yields unauthenticated-manifest. That is genuine semantic lift above the field descriptions.

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 and resource: reconcile the in-process receipt chain and checkpoint against a rail extract or this server's own ledger. It is clearly distinguishable from cedulon_verify_receipt and cedulon_export_ledger by scope (whole-ledger reconciliation vs. single receipt / export), though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Gives conditional context for the two modes (extract present = settlement side taken from the extract; absent = this server's own ledger), plus the refusal conditions. But it never says when an agent should choose this tool over cedulon_verify_receipt or cedulon_status, so routing must be inferred from the verb.

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

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying the output shape ('same JSON shape as npm run demo:export') and the included audit content (findings, guarantee, counts). It does not mention auth or rate limits, but the read-only annotation lowers the burden.

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 sentence that efficiently packs the core resource, the output shape, and the scope. Every phrase contributes meaningful information, and there is no filler. It is slightly dense, but it remains appropriately sized for a zero-parameter export tool.

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 inputs and annotations covering the safety profile, the description provides a solid output contract and scope. The main gap is that 'npm run demo:export' is an external reference and the relationship to cedulon_audit is not explicitly clarified, but for a read-only zero-parameter export this is substantially 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 has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter details that need explanation. The zero-parameter baseline is 4, and the description correctly adds no parameter guidance since none 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Export') and names the exact resources: receipts, checkpoint, rail extract, and the audit's findings, guarantee, and counts. It also defines the output shape by referencing 'npm run demo:export', which makes the tool's function concrete and distinct from siblings like cedulon_status or cedulon_audit. The only slight assumption is familiarity with the demo:export script, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 the use case: call this when you need the server's own ledger audit data in the demo:export JSON shape. However, it does not explicitly mention sibling tools or state when not to use this one, so an agent must infer routing from the tool name and context rather than from explicit guidance.

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

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

The description discloses both possible outcomes—an allow path returning a signed COSE receipt JSON and a deny path returning the fail-closed reason. This goes beyond the annotations, which only indicate hints like readOnly false and idempotent false. It doesn't explain the policy itself, but it clearly communicates the behavioral contract.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and each sentence adds distinct value. There is no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary background.

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?

While the description explains return variants, it does not cover policy prerequisites, parameter formats, or the meaning of nonce, payee, and currency. With no output scheme and only 40% schema description coverage, these omissions make it difficult for an agent to invoke the tool correctly the first time.

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 only 40%, yet the description adds no parameter-level meaning for nonce, payee, or currency, and does not even mention 'amount' or 'tool'. With most parameters undocumented in both schema and description, the agent has little guidance on how to set valid 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 identifies the action ('spend'), the resource ('mock rail'), and the policy-gating nature of the operation. It also distinguishes the tool from siblings like cedulon_verify_receipt and cedulon_audit by describing the spend-specific outcome.

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 this tool is used when a policy-gated spend should be attempted, and sibling names suggest the other tools serve different purposes. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or condition-based routing.

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

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context about the specific data fields exposed, but does not disclose any further behavioral details such as response format, freshness, or failure modes. This is comparable to a straightforward status read where the annotations carry the main burden.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the most important information: it enumerates exactly what the status tool exposes. Every word earns its place and there is no redundant or filler content.

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?

For a parameterless status endpoint with read-only annotations, the description is largely sufficient: it names the key result fields. There is no output schema to supplement the return values, but the listed fields are concrete enough for an agent to understand what this tool offers in the context of its siblings.

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 and the schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to document. With 0 params, the baseline of 4 applies, and the description does not need to compensate for any parameter coverage gap.

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 title 'Server status' plus the description's list of returned data ('Server version, policy summary, receipt count, and chain head hash') clearly identifies this as a read-only status tool. It is distinct from the sibling tools (spend, audit, verify_receipt, export_ledger), though it lacks an explicit verb such as 'returns' or 'gets'.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool versus its siblings such as cedulon_audit or cedulon_export_ledger. There is no stated condition, exclusion, or mention of alternatives; usage is only weakly implied by the word 'status' in the title.

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

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint, so the description carries the burden of behavioral caveats. It adds the important warning that omitting expectIssuerKeyPem makes verification self-referential and 'any key satisfies' it, which prevents an agent from over-trusting a nominally verified receipt.

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 two dense sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary purpose and then delivers the single most important usage caveat, making every word earn 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?

With 7 optional parameters, no required fields, no output schema, and no guidance on which parameter combinations are valid, the description is not complete enough for reliable invocation. It explains the issuer-key pitfall but leaves the receipt/countersignature input representations and the verification result unspecified.

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 only 43%, and the free-text description explains only expectIssuerKeyPem behaviorally. The relationship between coseHex, receipt, counterCoseHex, publicKeyPem, and payeePublicKeyPem is left unstated, so an agent cannot confidently choose among the seven optional input modes from the description alone.

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 opens with the verb 'Verify' and names the specific resource: a spend receipt COSE_Sign1 plus the optional payee countersignature. This clearly separates it from spend/audit/export/status siblings and makes the tool's operation unambiguous.

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 provides concrete conditional guidance: supply expectIssuerKeyPem when you want to check against a key you already hold, and omit it when you accept the receipt's self-carried key. It does not name alternative tools, but the parameter-level when/how instructions are clear enough for correct invocation.

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