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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'READ-ONLY... can be repeated safely' largely restates that. It adds some semantic context about what a valid proof proves, but no new behavioral traits such as auth needs, rate limits, or error conditions.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the definition, with the safety note last. The READ-ONLY sentence is somewhat redundant against the annotations, but it is brief and does not bloat the definition.

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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately explains what a valid proof signifies, which is the key semantic an agent needs. The only real gap is the unexplained 'log' enum and the absence of any return-format detail, both minor for a simple read-only proof tool.

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%: 'from' and 'to' are documented in the schema, and the phrase 'between two checkpoint tree sizes' loosely reinforces them. However, the 'log' enum (identity_events vs ledger) has no description in either schema or text, leaving that parameter's meaning unexplained.

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 ('Get an RFC 6962 consistency proof') and even defines the concept ('earlier log is an unchanged prefix of the later one'). It is clear, but it never differentiates itself from the closely related sibling inclusion_proof, leaving the agent to infer the distinction.

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 explains what a proof means but gives no guidance on when to call this versus the many sibling proof/checkpoint tools (inclusion_proof, checkpoints, checkpoint_crank). No prerequisites or exclusions are stated, so the agent must guess the selection criteria.

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