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

With no annotations, the description carries the whole burden and does disclose real behavior: credential not required, cost free, and that the proof is verifiable from the root alone without the original file. What is missing is error behavior (e.g., anchor not registered) and the concrete return encoding of the 'raw' proof.

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 with the user-intent quote, then a tight sentence on what is returned, followed by short credential/cost/source metadata. A couple of clauses are slightly redundant ('the proof's file digest, so it can be verified with the root alone and no other file') but nothing is wasted.

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 read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the definition covers purpose, auth, cost, and verification semantics but omits the returned proof's encoding and the behavior when no anchor exists, leaving modest gaps an agent would hit at call time.

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 0%, so the description must supply meaning, and it does: 'The root is the proof's file digest' explains what the parameter actually is, beyond the schema's hex pattern. It stops short of saying where the agent obtains a root (register_anchors/check_anchor flow).

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+resource: 'Returns the raw OpenTimestamps proof for an anchor root.' The opening quote ('I want the timestamp proof itself, to check with my own tools') implicitly distinguishes it from a server-side verification sibling like check_anchor, but never names that sibling explicitly.

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: 'to check with my own tools' and 'can be verified with the root alone... with the OpenTimestamps client' sketch when this tool is appropriate. There is no explicit 'use this instead of check_anchor when…' routing, and no prerequisites or failure cases are given.

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