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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses privacy default (Court does not receive the document), an opt-in mode that stores encrypted locked copies for seven years, a one-time-use key, credential requirements (key), cost (free, no daily limit), and retention period. That is exactly the behavioral context annotations would otherwise provide.

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?

Dense but each sentence earns its place (privacy, retention, key, caveat, credential/cost/source). The first-person framing at the start is slightly indirect, but the operational content follows promptly and waste is minimal.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the return (signed receipt + one-time key), privacy, retention, and auth adequately. It is weakened by the reference to a nonexistent `content` parameter and by not explaining the entries batching mode, but it is largely sufficient.

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 88%, so the schema already documents ref, kind, label, sha256, and the batching entries array; baseline is 3. The description adds some framing about the fingerprint and the optional document upload, but it refers to sending `content`, a parameter that does not exist in the schema, which is a misleading detail rather than added clarity.

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 function: stores a digital fingerprint of a document plus submission time and returns a Court-signed receipt anyone can verify. An agent can tell this is a timestamp/notarization operation. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from near siblings like preserve_evidence or hold_record, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Gives a clear selecting condition framed as a user need: proving what was done/agreed and when without handing over the document. It also states the limitation (a matching fingerprint shows non-change, not truth of contents), which is useful guidance. No explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative tool, so not a 5.

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