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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing the auth requirement (aqta_ key) and the returned artifacts, but says nothing about proof format, error behavior for unknown/foreign attestation_ids, or rate limits.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the output content front-loaded and the prerequisite trailing. Nothing to trim.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of describing return values, which it does at a high level (inclusion proof + signed tree head). Complete enough to call correctly, though it stops short of naming the proof encoding or how to feed the result into verify_receipt.

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% and there is only one parameter, so the schema already documents attestation_id fully. The phrase 'one of your receipts' adds a small ownership constraint, but nothing about format or where the id comes from (e.g., list_my_receipts). Baseline 3 applies.

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 resource pair (inclusion proof + signed tree head) scoped to 'one of your receipts', which is a concrete, non-tautological purpose beyond the title. It does not explicitly contrast with the nearby verify_receipt or decode_receipt siblings, so an agent must infer the split.

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 only guidance is the prerequisite 'Requires your aqta_ key' and the implicit scoping to your own receipts. There is no statement of when to use this versus verify_receipt (verification) or decode_receipt (parsing), which are the obvious alternatives in the sibling list.

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