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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this is a safe read, and the description does not contradict it. It adds useful context that the proof is independently recomputable against the signed root and operator's signature, but says nothing about failure modes (e.g., what happens if the entry is not in a seal) or the actual return 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?

Two compact sentences with no wasted words, front-loading what the artifact is. The phrasing is efficient, though the second sentence spends its budget on the consumer of the proof rather than the caller.

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 and four parameters (three of which are alternative locators), the description should do more. It partially compensates by describing the nature of the returned proof, but leaves parameter selection and sibling differentiation entirely unaddressed.

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?

The description mentions no parameters at all despite schema coverage being only 75%. The schema itself exposes non-obvious options (id, seq, index as alternative locators, plus an undescribed 'kind' enum), and the description does not explain how to choose among them or the required seq constraint.

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 is a noun phrase ('An inclusion proof for one entry in the sealed ledger') that largely restates the tool name rather than stating a retrieval verb. It does add the specific notion of an inclusion proof over a single entry, distinguishing it loosely from the broader smithtalks_seal, but an agent must infer that the tool actually returns/fetches such a 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?

'Hand this to anyone' explains what to do with the result, implying usage as a shareable verification artifact. However, it never states when to choose this over siblings like smithtalks_seal or smithtalks_verify, nor any prerequisites such as needing the seal number.

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