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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds the API-key requirement, which is genuine extra context, but says nothing about ordering of 'recent' results, pagination, or default behavior beyond what the schema supplies.

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?

A single short sentence with the core action front-loaded and no wasted words. The trailing parenthetical is slightly awkward but does carry a real prerequisite, so nothing is padded.

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 read-only list tool with one fully documented optional param and annotations covering safety, the definition is nearly adequate. It still omits what 'recent' means, ordering, and how results are paged, and the stamps/proofs naming gap leaves residual ambiguity.

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 is a single optional parameter (limit) with 100% schema coverage describing its default of 20. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies when the schema does all the work.

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?

States a verb (List) and a resource (your recent stamps), so the operation is identifiable. However, it renames 'proofs' as 'stamps', which is a terminology mismatch against the tool name and its siblings (create_proof, verify_proof, revoke_proof), and it does not differentiate this tool from those siblings.

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 only guidance is a parenthetical prerequisite ('requires API key'), which is a condition rather than a when-to-use rule. It never says when to call list_proofs versus verify_proof or reveal, nor any exclusion, leaving the agent to infer routing.

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