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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: the message is hashed, bound to a server timestamp and nonce, signed with Ed25519, verifiable against /pubkey, and the raw text is not stored. This is strong behavioral context, though it does not mention exact return structure or rate limits.

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?

Three tight sentences: use case first, then mechanism, then verification and privacy. Every sentence adds information and there is no repetition of schema fields or filler.

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?

Even with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives enough to use the tool correctly: what to send, what comes back, how to verify it, and a privacy guarantee. No critical missing information for an agent to invoke and interpret the result.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must clarify the message parameter. 'Send any string' and 'piece of text' convey that message is arbitrary text, and the schema separately constrains length. This adequately compensates for the otherwise bare schema.

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 ('attest') and resource ('proof-of-time for text') and clearly explains what the tool produces: a signed SHA-256 hash bound to a timestamp and nonce. This distinguishes it from the sibling storage/condition tools.

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?

Opens with an explicit 'Use this when you need cryptographic proof...' condition, which gives clear invocation context. It doesn't explicitly list when-not-to-use or name alternatives, but the intended use case is unambiguous.

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