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

The annotation readOnlyHint is reinforced by the description's 'READ-ONLY: this call changes nothing and can be repeated safely,' but this adds little beyond the annotation. It does add context about the proof being under a signed checkpoint, which clarifies semantics, but no additional behavioral traits (e.g., error handling, limits) are disclosed. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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 with no waste. The core purpose is front-loaded ('Get an RFC 6962 inclusion proof') and the read-only safety note is appended efficiently. Every word earns its place.

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 simple read-only tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and safety. It could mention what the response looks like, but since there's no output schema, that may not be necessary. It also could clarify which log values correspond to identity vs. treasury events, but the enum provides that. Overall, it's complete enough for an agent to call it 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 description coverage is 50% (event is described, log is not). The description mentions 'one sealed identity or treasury event' which hints at the log enum values (identity_events and ledger) but does not explicitly map them. It adds some context but does not fully compensate for the log parameter lacking a schema description. Baseline for 50% coverage is 3, and the description provides marginal added meaning.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and a precise resource 'RFC 6962 inclusion proof' with the scope of 'one sealed identity or treasury event under a signed checkpoint.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like checkpoint_consistency and checkpoint_crank, which are about checkpoint operations, not inclusion proofs. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 states the call is READ-ONLY and safe to repeat, which is useful usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., for verifying inclusion vs. checking consistency). It implies use when you need to prove an event is in the log, but no direct contrast with siblings is given.

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