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

All annotations are false, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does add two useful hints—proof is required and the server stores data while the client restores it—but it omits effects, expiration, overwrite behavior, or how proof is validated. No contradiction with annotations.

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 short and free of filler, which is good, but the cryptic phrasing ('The city stores; you restore yourself') trades clarity for brevity. It is appropriately sized but not optimally comprehensible.

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 7-parameter auth-heavy tool with no annotation hints, this description is not complete enough. It does not explain when to use the tool, how to obtain or supply proof, what GET returns, or what POST mutates. The output schema helps only after invocation, not with selection or correct setup.

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 57%, and the description at least clarifies that label and body are optional. The rich schema descriptions for nonce, leave_token, controller_signature, and controller_public_key carry most of the parameter semantics, but version is left entirely unexplained and the description does not compensate for that gap.

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 identifies the resource ('checkpoint') and gives concrete endpoint forms (GET/POST with label/body), so it is not a tautology. However, it never plainly states what a checkpoint is or what GET versus POST accomplishes, relying on metaphor: 'The city stores; you restore yourself.'

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?

No guidance explains when to use checkpoint instead of sibling tools like locker_write, hold_receipt, or seal_memory. The only usage hint is that proof is required, but no alternatives, exclusions, or decision criteria are provided.

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