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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is higher. The description goes well beyond this by disclosing that unknown identifiers are reported as pending rather than not found, the shared 60 req/min rate limit, and the mesh-quorum comparison behavior. No annotation contradiction exists.

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 labeled structure (PURPOSE/USAGE/PARAMETERS/BEHAVIOR/RETURNS/ERRORS) front-loads the most critical information and every sentence earns its place. No filler or repetition of schema data; it packs a large amount of decision-relevant detail into a compact, scannable format.

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 the output schema exists, the description need not detail return structures, yet it still summarizes them. It covers purpose, usage, parameter constraints, behavioral quirks, rate limits, error codes, and edge cases (unknown identifiers not producing 404). Nothing an agent needs to correctly select and invoke the tool 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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds genuine value by clarifying the exactly-one constraint, by explaining the semantic difference between proofHash (hex or CID) and snapshotDigest (decimal field digest, hex, or CID), and by specifying that unknown identifiers map to pending rather than not found. It slightly exceeds the baseline but still relies on schema patterns for exact formats.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieves process-memory lifecycle and mesh-quorum status for one proof or snapshot identifier.' This clearly states the exact operation and scope, and the 'one identifier' phrasing distinguishes it from listing tools like proof.list without any ambiguity.

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 USAGE section explicitly states when to use the tool ('Use exclusively to fetch a single attestation's status'), provides a direct exclusion ('Do NOT use to search, filter, or list multiple attestations'), and names the correct alternative ('use proof.list instead'). This is textbook guidance rivaling the calibration example.

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