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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the auth requirement but lacks details on side effects (likely none), output format, or any constraints like rate limiting or data scope.

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 a single sentence with a permission note, no redundant words, and the core action is front-loaded. 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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and minimal param info, the description leaves the agent without context on what a proof report is, how to obtain the IDs, or what the response contains. It meets basic requirements but is insufficient for practical use.

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%, and the description does not explain the parameters 'artifactBundleId' and 'proofReportId' beyond their names. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no additional meaning.

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 states 'Read one proof report,' specifying the action and resource. It distinguishes from siblings because the resource is specific, though it does not explicitly differentiate from other read tools like rubrkit_read_audit.

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 mentions a permission requirement ('Requires artifact_bundles:read for API keys') but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rubrkit_export_proof_report or other read tools.

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