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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds substantial behavioral context: bounded process-memory index, newest-first ordering, offset/limit handling, mesh quorum calculation, no durable database writes, and a shared rate limit. No contradiction exists between the description and annotations.

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 description is organized into labeled sections with no wasted sentences. It front-loads purpose and usage, then covers parameters, behavior, returns, and errors in a compact format that an agent can parse quickly.

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 listing tool with an output schema, the description still covers return fields, pagination totals, error codes, rate limiting, and shared-limit behavior. An agent has everything needed to select, invoke, and interpret results from this tool correctly.

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 100% and each parameter already has type, range, default, and enum documentation. The description restates the constraints in prose but does not add meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Lists and filters proof attestations held in the node's bounded process-memory index.' It clearly distinguishes itself from proof.status, which is the sibling for fetching individual status, so an agent can understand the scope without opening the schema.

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 explicit usage direction: 'Use exclusively to query or filter arrays of indexed attestations' and directly warns against using it for individual status, routing to 'proof.status instead.' This leaves no ambiguity about when to choose this tool over its sibling.

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