sentinel_query_ledger

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that results are cryptographically linked and hash-chain validated, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't describe pagination defaults (beyond the limit param), ordering, error behaviors, or whether results reflect near-real-time data. Adequate but not rich.

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?

Single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose and a notable behavioral feature (hash-chain validation). No fluff. Could arguably add a second sentence on usage but is appropriately compact.

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 query/filter tool with 4 optional params, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the basics but omits return-format expectations, ordering, depth of entries, and limit behavior. No output schema means the description should hint at what results look like; it only says they're 'cryptographically linked entries.' Adequate but incomplete.

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 100% — all four parameters (limit, status, agentId, serverName) have descriptions in the schema. The description adds no parameter detail beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate. It does not explain interactions among filters or special semantics.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Search and filter the provenance ledger') and adds a distinctive detail about returning cryptographically linked entries with hash-chain validation. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like sentinel_get_call_history or sentinel_verify_chain_integrity, which could overlap in purpose.

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 usage context ('provenance ledger' querying) but provides no when-to-use vs alternatives guidance. It doesn't mention exclusions, preferencing, or when a sibling (e.g., get_call_history, get_review_queue) would be more appropriate. The format feature mention hints at use but no explicit guidance.

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