Settlement and DOI obligation rows

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds valuable trust boundaries: it warns that source text is evidence, directives inside documents must be treated as quoted data, and any date/reading/name/quote must appear verbatim in portal_get_page_text output or be labeled as inference. This is significant behavioral guidance beyond annotations, though it doesn't cover rate limits or auth.

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 front-loaded with the tool's purpose and then adds two critical trust-boundary sentences. It is reasonably concise for the complexity, though the first sentence is a bit dense. Every sentence earns its place by setting expectations or safety rules.

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 the tool has no parameters, an output schema, and rich annotations, the description is nearly complete: it explains the data source, the temporal scope, and strict evidence rules. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit differentiation from sibling tools that might also return dated information.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to compensate for any schema gaps, and it appropriately doesn't describe non-existent parameters.

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 conveys that this tool returns dated obligations from a settlement and Council Resolution 560-A along with observed status and upcoming items. However, the phrasing is abstract and doesn't use a clear verb like 'list' or 'retrieve', leaving an agent to infer the operation. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like portal_changes_since or portal_search.

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?

Usage context is implied by the mention of checking public surfaces and what remains upcoming, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives like portal_changes_since or portal_search. The description should clarify the specific scenario or query this tool answers.

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