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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It conveys that the proof is 'server-owned' and 'terminal' (suggesting durability and authority) and that retrieval is appropriate after a session vanishes, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what happens if no attestation exists, whether it requires authentication, or what the response contains.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, though the dense jargon ('terminal proof') slightly reduces immediate comprehension.

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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should clarify return values and parameter usage. It explains the scenario but leaves the format and content of the 'proof' undefined, and it omits any error or edge-case behavior, making the definition incomplete for an agent to invoke it confidently.

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% for the single required parameter (review_id). The description merely implies 'for a review' without explaining the expected format, source, or any constraints for review_id, so it does little to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('server-owned terminal proof for a review'), and it distinguishes this tool from siblings like wait_review or submit_review by focusing on retrieving a durable proof after a session ends. However, 'terminal proof' is jargon that may not be immediately clear, and the description does not explicitly name the sibling alternatives.

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 condition 'after a client session disappears' gives a clear contextual trigger for using this tool, which implies when to use it. But there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it, no mention of alternatives (e.g., wait_review if the session is still active), and no prerequisites such as required permissions.

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