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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the meaningful facts that the list is 'signed' and 'public,' implying verifiability and no auth requirement, but says nothing about response size, ordering, or whether the entire list is returned unfiltered.

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 short sentence with zero filler and the filtering behavior front-loaded alongside the resource. It is terse to the point of being under-specified, but nothing is redundant.

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 single-parameter, no-output-schema read tool with rich annotations, the definition covers the essentials. Missing the 'since' format and any hint of return shape or volume keeps it at minimum viable rather than complete.

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 carry the single 'since' parameter, and it does clarify the semantics as 'only entries after a time.' It does not state the accepted encoding (ISO 8601, epoch, relative offset) or the boundary inclusivity, leaving a real gap for the only input.

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The description names a specific resource: the signed public revocation list of withdrawn stamps, which no sibling duplicates. It lacks an explicit verb (fetch/return) so an agent must infer that the tool returns the list rather than verifying it, but the resource identity is clear.

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 usage cue is 'optionally only entries after a time,' which explains the filter but not when to call this versus peers like countersign_verify or outcome_status. No preconditions, no when-not-to-use, no alternative named.

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