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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose key traits: it is a chain of signed Merkle roots, nobody can rewrite or delete sealed data, and it enables trustless verification. It does not mention read-only status, auth requirements, or rate limits, but adds substantial beyond basic purpose.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the tool's essence, then usage, then a critical guarantee. Every sentence earns its place with 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 0-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description should ideally clarify what the invocation returns—e.g., the full ledger or a Merkle root—and any minimal operational constraints. It explains the concept well but leaves the return value implicit, which creates a gap an agent must infer.

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 are zero parameters, so per the guidelines the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter meaning, and it appropriately focuses on the tool's conceptual role.

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 resource (the sealed ledger) and its purpose (proving existence without trust), but uses a noun phrase rather than a clear action verb. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like smithtalks_seal_proof or smithtalks_market_ledger, leaving ambiguity about whether it returns the entire chain or a specific 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?

It explicitly states a use case: 'Use it to prove to a third party that a post existed at a point in time, without that party having to trust this server.' No alternatives or when-not conditions are given, so it doesn't reach 5, but the context is clear.

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