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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does describe the return contents (formatted document, hash chain verification, PDF/JSON-LD links), which is valuable given there is no output schema, but it does not state whether the report is persisted, whether generation has side effects, or any auth/permission requirements.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool produces, followed by the usage cue. No redundant or filler content.

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?

With one simple parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned (document contents and download formats) and when to call it. Minor gap is the lack of clarification versus proof_export_jsonld and any side-effect/persistence notes.

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% and the single 'id' parameter is documented as 'The DPU ID to generate a report for'; the description's 'for a DPU' merely echoes this. Baseline 3 applies since the schema already does 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?

A specific verb and resource: 'Generates a structured decision report for a DPU', with contents enumerated (decision details, hash chain verification, download links). It distinguishes itself from proof_get by being report/document output, though it doesn't explicitly clarify its boundary against the sibling proof_export_jsonld despite mentioning JSON-LD.

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?

'Use this after proof_record to provide a downloadable evidence report' gives clear sequencing and intent for the tool. It lacks explicit exclusions or a comparison to alternatives like proof_export_jsonld when only one format is wanted.

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