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

The description discloses that signatures are re-verified during read, that storage is never trusted, and that invalid entries are reported rather than hidden. With no annotations, this description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does so effectively, though it does not cover permissions or rate limits.

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, no filler. The first sentence identifies the purpose, the second adds verification and error-handling behavior. Every word earns its place.

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, the description explains the core behavior (re-verify signatures, report invalid entries) but omits an explicit statement of what the response contains (e.g., list of witnesses) and provides no usage context. The absence of an output schema raises the burden, which this description only partially meets.

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?

The description does not mention the content_hash parameter or provide any format/handling details. With 0% schema coverage in the description, it fails to compensate, leaving the parameter semantics entirely to the schema's field name.

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 uses a question form ('Who has borne witness to a record') to convey that the tool lists witnesses for a record. It specifies the resource (record) and the verification behavior, distinguishing it from sibling tools like attest_record or verify. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'List' or 'Retrieve', which slightly reduces clarity.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as verify, audit, or attest_record. There is no mention of exclusions or preferred use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from the description alone.

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