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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses the broad return contents (hash chain position, AI involvement, human control, evidence level, compliance information), which helps, but omits permissions, not-found/error behavior, and whether the operation has any side effects.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The list of included details is informative, though slightly long, and every clause contributes to understanding the returned data.

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 retrieval tool, the description gives a reasonable summary of the return payload even without an output schema. It still leaves gaps around error handling, access requirements, and exact response shape, which matters more because annotations are absent.

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?

There is only one parameter, and the schema already documents it completely as 'The DPU ID to retrieve' with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional semantics such as ID format or validation rules, so the schema is doing the work.

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 and resource: 'Retrieves a Decision Proof Unit by ID'. This clearly distinguishes a lookup operation from verification or recording siblings, though it never explicitly names those alternatives.

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?

Usage is implied: call this when you have a DPU ID and want full details. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus proof_verify, proof_chain_verify, or proof_report, nor any stated prerequisites.

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