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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that this is a read of a public log, that results are ordered from newest after a cursor, and that the head hash and public key are returned — real behavioral value. It omits auth/rate-limit behavior, whether the head fields describe the log tip or something else, and any response shape detail.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler. Slightly compressed to the point of ambiguity — "its head hash and public key" leaves unclear whether these describe the log head or the newest entry.

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?

A cryptographic log tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation needs more than one sentence. The return payload (entries, head hash, public key) is only gestured at, and nothing explains what the head hash is for or how it relates to countersign_verify.

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 0% with two parameters, so the description must compensate. "Newest after a sequence number" successfully explains the semantics of `after` as a forward cursor, but `limit` is never mentioned or bounded, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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?

"Read the public stamp log" gives a clear verb (read) and resource (stamp log), and adds that the response includes head hash and public key. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from countersign_verify or countersign_stamp, but the read-only framing makes the split inferable.

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 guidance and no named alternative. The phrase "newest after a sequence number" hints at incremental polling, but nothing tells the agent whether to use this versus countersign_verify when it needs to check a stamp's validity.

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