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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the record is cryptographically chained with SHA-256 and returns decision_id and chain hash, but does not mention permissions, failure behavior, or immutability beyond the implied hash chain. This is moderate transparency.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the action ('Records an AI execution...'), and contains no redundant or vague phrasing. Every sentence adds meaningful context about the creation and its output.

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 creation tool with 10 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the essential return fields (decision_id, chain hash) and the cryptographic nature. It lacks details on error conditions or prerequisites, but given the simplicity of the operation, it is sufficiently complete.

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% (all 10 parameters have descriptions). The tool description adds no extra semantics about the parameters themselves, only mentions return fields (decision_id, chain hash). Since the schema fully documents parameters, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool records an AI execution as a DPU, using specific verbs and resource names. It distinguishes itself from siblings (proof_verify, proof_get, proof_report, etc.) which are for verification, retrieval, or export, while this is the creation tool.

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 implies use for recording proofs, and the sibling context makes it obvious this is the write operation. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, so it stops short of explicit exclusion guidance.

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