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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description adds no further behavioral context such as return format, pagination, authentication needs, or rate limits, so it does not enrich what structured data already provides.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool.

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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description covers the basic purpose. However, it omits any indication of how the proof is used or how it relates to sibling tools like affix_merkle_verify_proof, and it does not clarify the generic optional query parameter.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds only that the digest is a 'receipt digest', which marginally clarifies the required parameter beyond the schema's generic 'Path segment `digest`' label, but it does not explain the optional query parameter.

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 states a specific verb (Get) and resource (Merkle inclusion proof) and scopes it to a receipt digest. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like affix_merkle_verify_proof or affix_merkle_root, so an agent cannot easily tell them apart.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no prerequisites are given. The description merely restates the tool's function without helping the agent choose between this and sibling Merkle tools.

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