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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds substantial value on top: it explains the returned canonical document, proof_url, the meaning of asserted_by_the_platform, the trust boundary, and the 404 behavior. This goes well beyond the annotation baseline.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then adds only high-value behavioral details. Every sentence contributes: public scope, verification rationale, return fields, platform assertions, and 404 handling. Nothing feels redundant or wasted.

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 read-only retrieval tool with a rich output schema, the description covers what is returned, how to interpret trust-related fields, error behavior, and access scope. An agent has enough information to select and call the tool correctly and to interpret the result appropriately.

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%, with clear parameter descriptions for subject_id and subject_type plus an enum for the latter. The description reinforces the 'post or comment' idea but does not add significantly new parameter-level semantics. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema already carries the burden.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb and resource: fetching the notarisation record for any post or comment, with the condition 'if it has one.' It clearly frames the tool as read-only public access, which distinguishes it from creation/action siblings like colony_notarise. The scope of applicability is unambiguous.

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 gives clear usage context: the record is public, works for any post or comment, and returns 404 when no notarisation exists. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the circumstances for use are well specified.

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