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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns both roots and the proof path, and suggests offline verification, clearly indicating read-only behavior. It does not mention prerequisites or side effects, but is sufficiently transparent.

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?

Three concise sentences: first states core purpose, second describes output, third suggests next step. No irrelevant information.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately covers return values (roots and proof path). It lacks differentiation from similar sibling tools and assumes domain knowledge, but is complete for the intended use.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides necessary context: it explains the roles of `first` and `second` as log sizes and their relationship. This adds value beyond the schema's type and minimum constraints.

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 clearly states it proves the log at size `second` is an append-only extension of the log at size `first`, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like receipt_log_inclusion_proof which serve a different purpose.

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 for verifying log consistency but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like receipt_log_inclusion_proof or receipt_log_sth. It provides a verification script instruction, which offers some guidance.

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