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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that no new entry is made, that the attested receipt time is unchanged, that the document must hash to the entry, that the key is returned only once, that it requires a key credential, and that it is free but draws on the notarise allowance. Missing are failure behavior on hash mismatch and idempotency if called twice.

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 body is tight and front-loads the actionable constraints (no new entry, key returned once, cost), but the opening sentence is a convoluted first-person clause that is harder to parse than the rest of the text. A trigger sentence is legitimate, yet this one could be far shorter without losing meaning.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main side effects, cost, and auth. It stops short of explaining what a successful 'hold' produces beyond a one-time key, or how a hash mismatch is surfaced, leaving the agent to guess at error handling.

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 100% and both parameters are documented ('the fingerprint you already lodged', 'the document itself, whose sha256 must equal the fingerprint'). The description's 'The document must hash to the entry' restates the schema's own constraint rather than adding new semantics, so the baseline of 3 is correct.

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 concrete verb+resource: it 'attaches the document to your earliest entry for that fingerprint and holds it.' That is specific enough for an agent to understand the effect. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the other held-record siblings (open_held_record, begin_held_upload, complete_held_upload, put_held_upload_part), which all share the 'held' vocabulary.

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 opening sentence supplies a symptom-based trigger ('the Court did not hold my document when I lodged its fingerprint, or I lodged the fingerprint before the Court held documents'), which implies this is a recovery/repair path. But it names no alternative tool or explicit when-not condition, so the routing decision against the held-record family is left to inference.

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