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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds almost no behavior beyond that: it never says the tool returns setup instructions/documentation text, nor what form the response takes, despite there being no output schema.

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?

It is a single sentence with the purpose front-loaded, which is structurally sound. But the trailing enumeration reads as promotional copy (including 'FREE') rather than instruction, and several items repeat what the enum already exposes.

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 low-risk, one-optional-parameter read tool with annotations and no output schema, the definition is minimally adequate. It still leaves the agent guessing what content comes back and what 'all' or an omitted parameter produces, which matters for an onboarding entry-point tool.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter meaning — and it does partially, since the listed paths (notary, Claude Code plugin, MCP client, Python, LangChain, verify) map onto nearly every enum value. The 'all' option is never mentioned, and no guidance on default behavior when the optional parameter is omitted.

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 phrase 'How to add AgentProof to an agent' gives a rough resource focus, and the tool name get_started plus the stack enum make the intent (onboarding/setup guidance) inferable. But the rest is a keyword list of integration paths rather than a statement of what the tool actually returns, so an agent must read the enum to confirm what the tool is for.

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?

Listing paths ('Claude Code plugin, any MCP client, Python, LangChain, or verifying a log') plus naming notary_open_log for the 'one call' case implies when to reach for this tool and how it relates to that sibling. However, no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use framing or statement of which path an agent should choose is given.

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