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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure, and it does well: it explains the data source (reads stored attestation, not computed on request), the anchoring process with pending status, and the auth requirement (bearer). It doesn't mention error handling or rate limits, but for a read-only proof tool it is quite transparent about its behavior and data provenance.

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 a single, dense paragraph. Every sentence adds meaningful information about output shape, pending behavior, or auth. It is longer than a terse one-liner but appropriately so given the complexity of the anchoring logic. No redundancy or fluff.

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 the complexity of the output (fields, pending logic) and the lack of an output schema, the description explains all relevant fields and the anchoring rationale. It doesn't cover failure cases or integration details, but for a read-only, no-argument tool it is largely complete. Minor gaps on error semantics don't detract significantly.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivial and there is nothing for the description to add. The baseline of 4 for 0-parameter tools applies, and the description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps because none exist.

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 states a specific resource (Bridge Ledger rows) and a specific functional output (cryptographic inclusion proofs in a defined shape), and distinguishes it from siblings like balance_proof and verify_proof by naming the exact data domain and endpoint shape. The verb 'prove' is implied but the purpose is unambiguous and not a tautology.

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 gives clear context on when to use it: to obtain proof for bridge contribution/fee events, and notes that it is scoped to the token holder with no argument. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the domain specificity makes the usage context clear. However, it could have stated 'use balance_proof for balance rows' or similar to fully differentiate.

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