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

With no annotations, the description explains the two anchor types and their meanings, adding transparency about the returned data. It does not cover error handling or permissions, but the read-only nature is clear.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core function, followed by a practical usage note and background. No wasted words.

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 with an output schema, the description adequately covers return format, usage hint, and anchor semantics. It could mention prerequisites (e.g., having envelope and anchor IDs from other tools) but is largely 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'anchor on an envelope' but does not describe the parameters in detail. The parameter names are self-explanatory, and the description adds context about anchor kinds, but more explicit guidance on how to obtain these IDs would improve clarity.

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 returns the .ots proof (base64) for a given anchor on an envelope, with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_receipt and verify_audit_chain by focusing on proof retrieval.

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 advises using ots-cli for offline verification, giving context but no explicit when-not or alternatives. The usage is implied: retrieve the proof then verify externally.

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