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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key traits: it is a read-only independent verification, returns ordered leaves plus the Court's own re-derivation agreement, exposes a credential requirement (none), cost (free), and a source citation. It stops short of describing response shape or error behavior, but it adds substantial behavioral context.

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?

Front-loaded purpose followed by behavior, parameter guidance, and credential/cost/source metadata. The first-person framing is slightly chatty but each sentence contributes distinct information, and nothing reads as filler.

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 two-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers return content, the audit-path option, and trust/auth/cost context. The main residual gap is the absence of any sibling comparison, which matters given the nearby read_anchor_proof and register_anchors tools.

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 50%: root has only a pattern and entry is documented in the schema. The description adds real meaning, tying root to 'one anchor' and explaining that supplying entry yields the audit path proving inclusion, which is the operationally important role of the optional parameter.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: it returns the ordered leaves of one anchor so the caller can fold them into the root, and reports whether the Court's re-derivation agrees. The 'without trusting the Court' framing makes the independent-verification intent clear. It does not name or contrast with the sibling read_anchor_proof, leaving some differentiation to inference.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the caller is told to 'ask for a single entry to get the audit path that proves it is inside.' There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no prerequisites, and no routing to the sibling read_anchor_proof, so an agent must infer the selection criteria.

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