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

The readOnlyHint and openWorldHint=false annotations already establish a safe, closed-world read operation. The description adds useful scope about what content is covered, including proof guarantees and what it does not guarantee, privacy, and limits. It does not describe return format, depth, or how the answer is delivered, so a 3 is appropriate with annotations covering the safety profile.

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?

It is a single, front-loaded sentence listing the covered topics with no filler or repetition. The list is slightly run-on, but every item is meaningful and nothing extraneous is included.

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 simple, read-only explanation tool with one optional enum parameter and no output schema, the description covers the conceptual scope adequately. It is still missing routing guidance versus get_quickstart and does not indicate what the agent receives back (e.g., structured text or sections). Given the presence of a closely related sibling, that omission matters.

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 coverage is 100%, and the enum values already tell the agent the available topics with a default. The description loosely maps content to those topics (e.g., token claims for 'token', SDK options and events for 'sdk'), but it does not define what each enum value will return. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 clearly enumerates the explanatory content covered: how Proof of Type Input works, proof guarantees and limitations, privacy, limits, token claims, and SDK options/events. That is much more specific than the generic tool name 'explain'. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling get_quickstart, so it stops short of a 5.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus get_quickstart or verify_proof. The topic enum provides some implicit context (overview, faq, token, sdk), but the description never states when this tool is the right choice or when another sibling should be used instead.

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