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

The readOnlyHint annotation is present, and the description reinforces it by explicitly stating 'READ-ONLY: this call changes nothing and can be repeated safely.' It also adds useful semantic behavior—what a valid proof demonstrates—that the annotation alone does not convey. No contradiction.

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 compact sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the operation and resource; the second adds essential semantic meaning. The READ-ONLY statement is somewhat redundant with annotations but harmless.

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?

The definition explains the proof's meaning and read-only nature, which are core facts needed to call it. However, with no output schema, it does not describe the returned proof shape, and it omits guidance about log selection or edge cases. Adequate for a narrow proof endpoint, but with visible gaps.

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 67% with from/to already described as earlier/later tree sizes and log limited by an enum. The description rephrases the from/to relationship but does not add meaning for the log parameter or provide any syntax beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 operation ('Get') on a well-defined resource ('RFC 6962 consistency proof between two checkpoint tree sizes'). The 'between two tree sizes' qualifier distinguishes it from proof-type siblings like inclusion_proof, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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?

The description gives a clear use context: this call proves that the earlier log is an unchanged prefix of the later one, which conveys when an agent would want it. It does not, however, provide exclusions or compare against sibling proof/checkpoint tools.

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