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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the returned proof is independently recomputable against a signed root with an operator signature. It still omits auth requirements, whether kind defaults, or what an invalid/missing seq does.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler, and the core artifact definition is front-loaded. The second sentence is slightly usage-oriented rather than mechanical, but it earns its place by explaining the proof's verifiability.

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?

With no output schema, the description does step in to characterize what the returned proof is and how it can be checked, which is valuable. However, for a 4-parameter tool with a required seq and a relational dependency on project100_seal, it leaves the retrieval semantics and failure modes unexplained.

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 75%, so the schema already documents seq, id, and index; the description says only 'one entry' and supplies no parameter-level detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries most of the burden.

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 identifies the artifact (an inclusion proof for one entry in the sealed ledger), but it is written as a noun phrase rather than an action verb, so it's unclear whether the tool retrieves, generates, or fetches the proof. It also doesn't distinguish itself from the sibling project100_seal, which the schema implicitly requires as a prerequisite.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternative. The phrase 'Hand this to anyone' hints at a verification use case, but it never says when an agent should call this versus project100_seal or project100_verify, and the seq prerequisite is only mentioned inside the schema.

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