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

Annotations show readOnlyHint: false, yet the description's 'Get' wording could suggest a simple read. The description does add useful auth context (Bidda subscription and api_key) and the public-history-chain anchoring, but it does not explicitly disambiguate the non-read-only nature of the operation. That leaves the description slightly under-transparent for a tool this potentially consequential.

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 short sentences front-load the core purpose, then add a use case and auth requirement. There is little wasted text, though the final sentence about api_key is arguably already encoded in the schema—not severe, just slightly redundant.

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 there is no output schema, the description still tells the agent what the tool returns (a signed record) and when it is needed. It also conveys prerequisites and the time-input's purpose. That is sufficient for correct selection and invocation.

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 input schema already documents all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the description carries only modest extra semantic weight. It clarifies that as_of targets a past date and that a subscription key is required, but these points are largely derivable from the schema itself.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') plus a concrete object ('signed record of which committed version of a rule was authoritative at a specific past date') and a distinctive context ('anchored to the public history chain'). This clearly differentiates the operation from sibling tools like get_node, get_latest_changes, or create_attestation.

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 an explicit trigger scenario: 'useful when an agent must show what a rule said at the moment it acted.' This clearly indicates when to use the tool, although it does not name sibling alternatives or include when-not-to-use guidance, so it falls just short of a 5.

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