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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a good job: it discloses access control (uploader-only retrieval), credential requirement (key), and a rate limit plus fee status (120 reads/hour, no agent fee this release). It omits failure behavior and response shape, but the auth and throttling disclosures are genuinely valuable context beyond structured data.

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 content is compact, but the structure is muddled: it opens with a first-person intent quote, then interleaves return values, download behavior, access control, and cost without clear front-loading. There is mild redundancy between 'its verification proof' and 'the timestamp proof's state'.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description bears the entire explanatory load. It covers access control, cost, and rate limits competently, but leaves the required `id` parameter and the returned receipt contents under-specified for a two-parameter retrieval tool.

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 2 parameters. The description partially compensates by explaining what the `download` flag does ('A download includes the evidence and available timestamp proof'), but the required `id` parameter is never explained (whose id, what format), leaving a documented gap.

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 reasonably specific verb+resource: retrieving the agent's own copy of evidence and its verification/timestamp proof, returning a private receipt. An agent can infer the tool reads evidence rather than writing it (contrast with sibling preserve_evidence), though it never explicitly names or distinguishes itself from adjacent read tools like read_anchor_proof.

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?

It supplies a real usage constraint ('Only the agent that uploaded the package can retrieve it') and clarifies what a download yields, which is implied guidance. However, it never states when to prefer this over evidence_options, read_anchor_proof, or preserve_evidence, so alternatives are left to inference.

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