intercept_token

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one valuable operational fact — an authenticated Sovereign Enclave connection via ZEROH_API_URL is required — and "Query" weakly implies a read. But it says nothing about whether the token is consumed/intercepted (as the name suggests), whether lookups are logged, what happens when a token is not found, or what the call returns. For a tool whose name implies a potentially sensitive operation, this is a significant gap.

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 compact sentences with the operation front-loaded and the prerequisite trailing. No filler, though the second sentence is a prerequisite buried at the end when it could be stated as a gate before invocation.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source of behavioral information, and it omits what a lookup returns, whether the operation is side-effecting, and error behavior for an unknown token. Given the name implies interception, the omission of any statement about side effects is a real gap for a one-parameter 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% with a single required `token` parameter, so the schema already defines it as a token or reference identifier. The description adds no format, encoding, or validity constraints (e.g., whether root references use a different syntax than tokens), so it neither compensates nor detracts. Baseline 3 applies.

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 concrete verb and resource ("Query the Sovereign Enclave canonical ledger for a token or root reference"), but the tool name `intercept_token` implies interception of a token rather than a ledger lookup, which creates genuine ambiguity about what actually happens. The vendor-specific jargon ("Sovereign Enclave canonical ledger") doesn't help an agent map this to a familiar operation. It is not tautological, but the name/description mismatch keeps it below a 4.

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 indication of when to use this tool versus siblings such as `enclave_status`, `validate_claim`, or `zk_verify_receipt`, all of which touch the same enclave domain. No prerequisites beyond the connection URL, no exclusions, no stated outcome. The agent must infer everything about selection.

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