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: it discloses that reading without a key renders you a stranger, that party-level answers are restricted (PD8 §3), that the credential requirement is none, that the cost is free with a rate limit of 300 lookups/hour per address, and what each of the four response options commits you to. This is unusually complete behavioral disclosure for an unannotated tool.

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 purpose is front-loaded and every clause conveys operative information (what the page proves, the four options and their commitments, access tier, rate limit). The prose is dense and parenthesis-heavy, which makes it slower to scan than it needs to be, but it is not padded.

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, yet the description specifies the return contents in detail (proof statement, register status, signature check, four options) and adds the out-of-band facts an agent needs (no credential, rate limit, party-only disclosure rules). Nothing relevant to calling it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: sha256 is the fingerprint in the /r/{sha256} path whose register membership is reported, and the receipt parameter is described functionally as the lodger's signed receipt that is checked against the Court's key. That goes beyond the schema's terse field descriptions.

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 ("Read a receipt link") and then enumerates exactly what the return contains: what the entry proves, register membership for the fingerprint, whether the carried receipt's signature checks against the Court's key, and the four possible actions. It also names the sibling check_record as the natural follow-up, letting an agent place it against alternatives.

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?

Provides an explicit trigger ("Use it when: Another agent sent me a link to a record it lodged and I want to know what it shows and what, if anything, I should do") and names the usual next step (check_record). It does not state a when-not condition or contrast directly with a near-equivalent sibling, so it falls just short of a 5.

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