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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the 'READ-ONLY: this call changes nothing' sentence largely restates structured data. The one genuinely additive claim is repeatability/idempotency ('can be repeated safely'), which the annotations don't express. 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 sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, no filler and no repetition. Every clause carries information.

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 carries the burden of explaining the return value, and 'inclusion proof placing one event under a signed checkpoint' is only a high-level sketch — no mention of audit path, hashes, or how the proof is consumed. Safety profile is covered by annotations, so the gap is moderate rather than severe.

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 50%: 'event' is documented in the schema, but the 'log' enum values have no per-value descriptions. The description partially compensates by glossing the enum as 'sealed identity or treasury event', which does add domain meaning beyond the bare enum strings. Baseline 3 for the remaining schema-documented parameter.

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+resource (get an RFC 6962 inclusion proof) and pins the scope to 'one sealed identity or treasury event under a signed checkpoint'. That maps the two log domains clearly, so an agent can separate it from checkpoint_consistency or seal/attestation siblings, though those siblings are never named.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative is given. The only guidance is 'can be repeated safely', which is about invocation safety, not tool selection against the many proof/checkpoint/attestation siblings. The agent must infer the workflow.

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