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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: it discloses append-only semantics, revision retention, Ed25519 signing, and what the no-series call returns (catalogue, keyId→publicKey map, yearly ledger URLs). The read-only archival nature is clear; no side effects or auth caveats are needed.

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?

Three packed sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by usage behavior and a concrete example. Each sentence earns its place; 'Try: {}' is a useful shorthand for the no-series call. No fluff or repetition.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain return behavior, and it does: entry fields, catalogue form, keyId map, ledger URLs, rolling window, and append-only retention. For a one-param, non-nested tool, nothing essential is missing.

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 covers series at 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds the meaningful consequence of omitting series – returning the catalogue plus the keyId map and ledger URLs – which enriches the agent's understanding beyond the schema's type description.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and a precise resource ('append-only archive of Ed25519-signed data receipts'), then details what each entry carries: claim, claimHash, signature, keyId, and the rolling-window scope. This gives a concrete, distinctive purpose even amid noisy sibling names.

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?

Gives explicit call guidance: 'Call with no series for the catalogue plus the keyId→publicKey map and the permanent yearly ledger URLs,' and offers a concrete invocation hint ('Try: {}'). It provides clear context on parameter behavior, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it.

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