revocation_exposure

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It discloses that all parameters are optional, that defaults mirror an external calculator, and exactly what the response contains (result, formula, interpretation, cite_as). It does not mention side effects, but this is clearly a read/compute operation.

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 three sentences with no filler: it opens with the purpose, states the return values, and notes the defaults and response contents. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 six optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it names all major outputs and gives the default behavior. It could be slightly richer with an example or a note on how the grade is calculated, but the schema already details parameters.

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%, so the parameters are already well documented with defaults and allowed values. The description adds only the fact that all parameters are optional, which is already visible from the schema, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 explains what the tool computes—revocation exposure across gateways, caches and workers—and names concrete outputs (worst-case window, A–F grade, weakest enforcement point). It does not explicitly contrast it with siblings such as token_burn, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

No guidance is given about when to choose this tool rather than related tools like token_burn or verification_bottleneck. The intended use is only implied by the question in the first sentence, with no alternative conditions or exclusions.

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