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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses that each signature is re-verified on read, that stored data is never trusted, and that invalid entries are reported rather than suppressed. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond a bare read, though it omits whether it is read-only or what permission is required.

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 tight sentences that front-load the core purpose and then layer in the verification behavior. The '[CHECK · internal]' prefix is slightly cryptic but compact, and no sentence is wasted.

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 single-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the behavioral angle but leaves gaps: it never explains the content_hash input semantics or what a returned witness entry looks like. Adequate but not fully 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 description coverage is 0% for the single required parameter content_hash, so the description must compensate but does not. It only refers obliquely to 'a record,' adding no format, expected-value, or matching semantics for content_hash beyond the parameter name itself.

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 resource (the witnesses who have attested to a record) and implies the query verb by asking 'Who has borne witness to a record.' It is distinguishable from siblings like attest_record (creates a witness) and verify (validates something), though the exact output shape is left implicit.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no alternatives are named, despite many nearby verification/attestation siblings (attest_record, verify, find_verifier, self_attest). The '[CHECK · internal]' tag hints at a context but does not explain when an agent should call this versus verify or find_verifier.

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