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

The description adds valuable context beyond the annotations: the call requires a Bidda subscription, the record is signed, and it is anchored to the public history chain. It is slightly ambiguous whether this is purely a read of an existing record or creates a new signed record, especially given readOnlyHint=false and the title 'Sign a point-in-time record', but the description is reasonably transparent overall.

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 three sentences with no filler: core purpose, use case, and prerequisite. The most important semantics are front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description explains the high-level output: a signed record of which committed version was authoritative. It omits exact response fields and failure behavior, but for a three-parameter tool with complete schema coverage and clear auth guidance, this is sufficient for correct 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description reinforces that api_key is needed and that as_of relates to a past date, but it does not add meaningful detail beyond what the input schema already provides.

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 names a specific operation ('Get a signed record') and a precise resource: the committed version of a rule authoritative at a past date, anchored to the public history chain. The use case ('show what a rule said at the moment it acted') clearly distinguishes it from current-state or change-log siblings like get_node and get_latest_changes.

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 a concrete scenario ('when an agent must show what a rule said at the moment it acted') and states the prerequisite of an active Bidda subscription with an api_key. It does not name alternative tools or say when not to use it, but the intended context is clear enough.

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