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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: the proof record is immutable, includes a SHA-256 hash for tamper detection, and requires authentication. This goes beyond the annotations to set expectations about security and integrity.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every clause adds value: the resource, the included contents, product tie-in, and the authentication note. No filler or redundancy.

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 simple read-only operation with one parameter, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description is sufficient. It states the prerequisite (verified claim), what the proof record contains, and the authentication requirement, so an agent can correctly invoke the 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?

The input schema covers 100% of the single parameter (claim_id) with a clear description ('UUID of the claim to get proof for'). The description adds only minor context ('verified claim') but does not change parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 opens with 'Retrieve the immutable proof record for a verified claim' – a specific verb plus resource. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like thinkneo_verify_claim or thinkneo_register_claim by focusing on retrieval of an already-verified claim's proof, and adds context with 'From Prompt to 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?

The description implies usage after a claim has been verified ('for a verified claim') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like thinkneo_verify_claim. There is no explicit exclusions or alternative guidance, only contextual implication.

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