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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description clarifies that the tool works only for the user's own receipts (via 'aqta_ key') and produces two outputs (inclusion proof + signed tree head), which goes beyond the annotations. No contradiction detected.

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?

The description is very concise—two sentences that cover the core purpose and a key prerequisite. It is front-loaded with the main action. One could argue the prerequisite could be integrated into the first sentence, but overall it's efficient.

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?

Given that this tool has only one parameter, no output schema, and relies on annotations for safety profile, the description is mostly adequate. However, it fails to mention what the output is used for or how the inclusion proof is structured, which could leave an agent uncertain about downstream processing. The sibling tools context hints at verification workflows, so more context on return format would improve completeness.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The description explains that 'attestation_id' is a receipt identifier but doesn't specify the format or example value. However, the context that requires the 'aqta_ key' implies the attestation_id is tied to that key, providing partial meaning. Still, a bit more detail on parameter format would improve the score.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: generating an inclusion proof plus signed tree head for a user's receipt. The verb 'prove' combined with the resource 'receipt is in the log' is specific and distinct from sibling tools.

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 mentions a prerequisite ('Requires your aqta_ key') which helps clarify when the tool is applicable. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'verify_receipt' or 'decode_receipt', or when not to use it.

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