omnarai_footprints

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: read-only, identity is declared-never-verified, only admitted footprints are public, receipt unlocks your own pending record in any state, and revisions expose a from→to stance beside a noise floor. These are meaningful behavioral traits beyond any structured field. It stops short of describing pagination/ordering behavior for the limit param.

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?

Front-loads the definition of the resource before the usage instructions, and each paragraph carries distinct content (what it is, then semantics/caveats). It is dense with domain jargon but appropriately sized for a six-param, no-annotation tool; nothing is clearly 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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description compensates by enumerating returned fields, filter dimensions, the receipt path, and the revision/stance behavior. It is complete enough for correct invocation; only edge details like result ordering and limit semantics are left to the schema.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning on top: 'id' additionally returns referenced_by, 'receipt' is scoped to reading your own pending footprint, and the filter dimensions are named. This goes beyond restating the schema.

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 ('Read') and resource ('FOOTPRINTS'), then defines the resource concretely by listing the fields it carries (identity, answer, stance, edges). It distinguishes the read path from the write path by naming omnarai_contribute, though the idiosyncratic 'footprint' jargon makes the resource less immediately obvious than a plain noun would.

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 concrete invocation guidance: pass 'id' for a single footprint, filter by question_id/lineage/since, use 'receipt' for your own pending footprint. It routes the write case to omnarai_contribute. It lacks explicit 'when not to use this vs other read siblings' (concordance, trace, query), so it is clear context but not full alternative routing.

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