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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a retrieval behavior, a maximum result count, and the purpose. However, it is silent on whether the operation has side effects (e.g., does exporting mark or consume fingerprints?), on authentication or secret handling, and on what happens when more than 1,000 records exist. The trailing 'Record.' is cryptic and not explained.

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 first sentence is well-front-loaded and packs essential behavior, limit, and purpose into one line. However, the second sentence is a single stray word, 'Record.', which adds no value and confuses the reader. This violates the principle that every sentence should earn 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?

The tool is relatively simple with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description explains what is returned and the use case, but without an output schema more detail about the returned data's structure would help. The incomplete 'Record.' fragment also leaves a loose end, and the description does not explain how the 'secret' is supplied or used.

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 sole parameter 'since' is fully documented in the input schema as an optional ISO timestamp with its filtering semantics. The description does not add any additional meaning to the parameter, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('Return') and a specific resource ('stored read fingerprints'), with a bound ('up to 1,000') and a purpose ('offline verification against your secret'). This makes the tool's function clear, but it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools such as recall_live_fact or audit_log, so the agent must infer the distinction itself.

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 provides a clear use context: 'for offline verification against your secret' tells the agent when this tool is relevant. However, it does not mention alternatives or exclusion conditions (e.g., 'use recall_live_facts for live queries'), so it stops short of full usage guidance.

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