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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the useful fact that 'every proof is open' (public visibility), but says nothing about behavior on an unknown slug or the response shape.

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?

A single compact sentence with no filler, and the defining content (what a proof is) is front-loaded. It is slightly under-specified rather than verbose, but structurally efficient.

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 fetch with no output schema, listing the returned fields is genuinely helpful. However, the omission of the slug parameter's meaning and any error behavior leaves gaps an agent needs to call it correctly.

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?

There is one required parameter, slug, at 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it — not what a slug is (skill identifier vs. proof identifier), nor its format. With a low-coverage single param, the description should compensate and does not.

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 enumerates what a proof contains (fixed brief, model, skill commit, result-page links), which conveys the resource well, but it never states the action or the lookup key. It reads as a noun definition rather than 'retrieve the proof identified by slug', and it does not distinguish itself from siblings like check_skill or order_proof.

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 guidance on when to call this versus check_skill, get_skill, or search_skills, and no prerequisite (e.g. needing a known slug) is stated. The agent must infer usage entirely.

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