audit.explain

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses the read-only nature, the side effect that the lookup is recorded, and the security behavior of returning a signed deny for both non-existent and other-tenant refs to avoid information leaks. This is exemplary behavioral disclosure.

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 dense but well-organized, moving from purpose to usage, return fields, and edge-case behavior. It is longer than minimal, yet every sentence contributes essential information and nothing feels redundant or off-topic.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully explains the return shape: record, effect, finding, witnessClass, guarantee, warnings, trustRoot, and the held-call pair case. Error semantics are also covered with the signed-deny behavior. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret the tool correctly.

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 practical semantics beyond the schema: the ref is the one returned by an earlier call, or the tail of a denied/deferred answer. This helps the agent locate the correct value to pass.

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 and resource: reads a signed ledger decision by ref and explains it. The tool's focus on auditing decisions is clearly distinct from sibling tools handling memory, messaging, and spending, so an agent can tell them apart immediately.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it: to check what the body decided about an earlier call and whether the effect matched, before repeating or reporting on it. It also notes the lookup is recorded, which is a useful side-effect warning. No alternatives are named, but the siblings are unrelated so exclusions are not necessary.

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