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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose cost, payment ordering, and exact-match behavior. However, it does not state whether the operation mutates the ledger, what happens when no record matches, or what the response contains. This is useful but incomplete 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 compact, front-loads the paid nature, and communicates the core behavior and parameters in three short clauses. Every sentence provides distinct, necessary information with no filler.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, this description covers the essential calling requirements: cost, ref formats, exact-match semantics, and payment ordering. It lacks details about response shape and sibling-tool differentiation, but the tool is simple enough that an agent can likely invoke it correctly with this information.

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 add meaning, and it does: ref is explained as a txHash, sha256, or 16-hex stamp, and payment_tx is tied to the pay-first instruction. It still leaves payment_tx format and exact source unspecified, but it meaningfully compensates for the bare string types.

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 states a clear action: produce a certificate of existence by exact-matching a ledger record. It also specifies the acceptable forms of ref (txHash, sha256, 16-hex stamp). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like khotem_seal or khotem_receipt_verify, so it falls short of a 5.

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 gives explicit operational guidance: pay first, then pass payment_tx, and use exact-match semantics on ref. It does not describe when not to use the tool or name alternatives, but the core precondition and matching behavior are clear.

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