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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does a good job: it discloses the returned fields, the index-of-all-proofs behavior when no model is specified, the effect of include_bundle, and how verification can be performed. It stops short of covering edge cases like missing proofs or errors, but the core behavior is well described.

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 dense paragraph that front-loads the resource and then lists returned content, the optional bundle toggle, and verification methods. There is no filler, and every clause adds useful information, though the long sentence could be split for easier scanning.

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 only two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main input semantics, the return contents, and how to verify results. The only notable gap is what happens when no proof exists or the model is not found, but the overall guidance is sufficient for correct invocation in common cases.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clearly explains include_bundle=true and implies that model selects a specific model or the index of all proofs. However, it does not describe the expected format or valid values for the model parameter.

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 name and title establish that this is a retrieval operation, and the description specifies the exact resource: the published TACET silence proof for a model, or the index of all proofs. It is clear and specific about the resource, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools such as silence_report.

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 when to use the tool by describing what it returns, and it gives conditional guidance for include_bundle=true. It also mentions verify_seal as an alternative verification path, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool versus verify_seal or silence_report.

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