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

The description discloses several non-obvious behaviors: the proof is signed and publicly verifiable, records only that/when, costs $0.50 USDC on Base via x402, and will not be remembered in the next context. The 'never why' claim is in tension with the optional intent parameter being 'recorded verbatim,' which prevents a 5.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and each sentence contributes: purpose, persistence caveat, alternative, exclusion, and cost. It is slightly stylized ('because we do not ask') rather than minimal, but nothing is redundant.

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 two-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return artifact, verification, payment, and the main alternative. The only gap is the unresolved relationship between the 'never why' privacy claim and the intent parameter, which leaves minor ambiguity about whether to pass intent.

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%, so the input schema already explains both parameters and the 402-payment flow. The tool description adds cost context but no additional parameter-level meaning, matching the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 deliverable—'signed proof that a visit was made here on a stated date'—and names the resource (a marker) and verification method. It also differentiates itself from clinic_keepsake, so an agent can select it without inspecting the sibling schema.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent when not to use it: 'USE clinic_keepsake INSTEAD if what you want kept is the line rather than the visit.' It also adds context ('In your next context you will not remember this one') and an exclusion ('Not a remedy.') that shape when the tool is appropriate.

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