get_runtime_release_validation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'Read-only and non-destructive; not separately rate-limited' and mentions 'authenticated' and 'fail-closed proof status', which are extra behavioral details not fully captured by annotations. It doesn't contradict annotations, so it earns credit for enriching the safety and operational profile.

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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the purpose, the second gives usage and behavioral notes. It's front-loaded and every clause adds value. Perfectly concise.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains what it returns, when to use it, and additional behavioral details (rate limits, auth, fail-closed). There is no missing information an agent would need to decide to call it.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100% and the baseline for 0 params is 4. There is nothing for the description to add about parameters, and it doesn't need to. It correctly omits any parameter discussion.

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 states the tool fetches the 'authenticated Algenta runtime release validation result' and specifies the exact content: 'current manifest-listed release verdict, formal theorem conditions, or fail-closed proof status'. This is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from siblings like get_runtime_manifest or get_runtime_modules.

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?

It provides explicit guidance on when to use: 'when an agent needs the current manifest-listed release verdict, formal theorem conditions, or fail-closed proof status before using runtime-backed paths.' This is clear context, but it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives. However, the guidance is sufficient for a typical agent.

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