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

Annotations already signal mutability (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false), so the description doesn't need to repeat that. The description adds behavioral context: the ledger is tamper-evident, records are hash-chained, and results include a verify_url. It also discloses a prerequisite (requires a Kamy API key). The only gap is no mention of rate limits or idempotency, but the behavioral coverage is strong.

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 tightly written—three sentences, no filler. The first sentence delivers the core action and purpose, the second provides usage scenarios and chaining mechanics, and the third lists return fields and a prerequisite. Every sentence 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 the tool's moderate complexity (8 params, 2 required, no output schema), the description covers all essential aspects: what the tool does, when to use it, how to structure the chain, what it returns, and a prerequisite. The agent has enough context to invoke this correctly without referencing external documentation.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining why certain parameters matter beyond their schema types: run_id is for chaining records, parent_sha256 explicitly links the chain, tool_call and tool_result should be verbatim. This is substantial added context that helps the agent use the tool correctly.

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 the verb ('append'), the resource ('signed tool_call -> tool_result pair to a tamper-evident ledger'), and distinguishes the tool from siblings (e.g., get_provenance_chain for reading back, verify_attestation for verification). It explicitly says when to call it—after any consequential tool invocation—and lists non-obvious use cases (payment, email, write).

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: after any consequential tool invocation. It names a specific sibling (get_provenance_chain) for reading back results, which gives the agent an alternative. It also explains how to structure calls (stable run_id, parent_sha256 to link records), leaving no ambiguity.

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