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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that unknown slugs return an error and indicates two modes (default and slug-scoped). This is useful behavioral context, though it doesn't cover return format or side effects (if any).

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a short error-handling note. No wasted words.

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 1-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the purpose, parameter behavior, and error case. The term 'claim gates' might be unclear to unfamiliar agents, but within the sibling context it is adequate.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains that 'slug' specifies a per-project proof link and that unknown slugs cause an error. This clarifies the optional parameter well beyond the bare schema.

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 tool's function: retrieving verification proof for claim gates, or per-project proof links when a slug is given. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_project and get_profile_summary.

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?

Usage is implied: use for proof retrieval, optionally scoped by slug. However, no explicit when-to-use or alternatives are provided, and there is no mention of when choose this over other getter tools.

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