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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does substantial work: 'public' implies a non-mutating, accessible operation, and the 'never...never...' clause sets important expectations about what the response is and is not. It does not mention error behavior or authorization, but those are minor for a simple public read.

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 two short, front-loaded sentences. The first names the action and resource, and the second compactly conveys output structure plus disclaimers with no wasted words.

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-required-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it tells the agent what to pass, what it returns, and what it never returns. Minor details like not-found or malformed proof_id behavior are not covered, but the agent has enough to invoke and interpret the result.

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 100%, and the existing proof_id description already explains it as an opaque id from an /agent/<proof_id> link. The description only reaffirms 'opaque proof id,' adding no extra semantic detail.

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 specific action and resource: 'Read an Obelisk agent's public proof vector by opaque proof id'. It clearly differentiates from sibling trust-and-verification tools by stating it returns 'independent claims with freshness and scope; never a scalar trust score or a claim of non-humanness.'

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 clear reading context: use this to fetch proof claims, not to get a trust score or non-humanness verdict. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as verify_agent_run_proof or get_org_rating, so the when-not guidance is implicit rather than direct.

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