Delimit Ledger

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: the ledger is append-only, hash-chained, stores signed governance events, and can verify integrity. It also discloses that it calls backends.gateway_core.query_ledger, which is useful and consistent with the annotations.

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 well-structured with front-loaded key information and labeled sections. A minor redundancy exists: the hash-chained contract ledger is described more than once, and the 'Side effects: read-only' line partly repeats the annotations, but the overall length is still appropriate and scannable.

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 output schema exists, the annotations cover safety, and the input schema covers parameters at 100%, the description is complete for selection and invocation. It explains the data store, integrity verification capability, and sibling distinctions without needing to explain return values.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not repeat parameter-level details, which is appropriate, but it only lightly contextualizes validate_chain via the 'audit' and 'verify integrity' language. The schema already explains each parameter adequately.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Query the append-only contract ledger (hash-chained JSONL).' It clearly distinguishes this tool from delimit_ledger_list and delimit_audit by naming what each sibling reads, so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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 an explicit 'When to use' section and an explicit 'When NOT to use' section that names the alternatives (delimit_ledger_list / delimit_ledger_query). The sibling contrast further clarifies routing to delimit_audit vs. this tool, leaving little to inference.

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