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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and a closed-world scope, but the description adds real behavioral content: the service re-verifies H(content) == stampedHash before returning, and the feature is currently inert because stamps are hash-only. That tells the agent why calls may fail, which annotations cannot convey.

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 action, then the availability constraint, then the integrity guarantee. Every sentence carries distinct information with no redundancy.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (escrowed content), the precondition, and the current unavailability. Only the shape of the returned content on success or hash-mismatch failure is left unstated.

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 100% and both parameters are described there, including the note that capabilityToken comes from grant_access. The prose adds the escrow/verification context but no new syntax or format meaning for either parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 specific verb (retrieve) and resource (escrowed content) scoped to a proof the caller has been granted access to. This clearly separates it from verify_proof (hash verification), grant_access (issuing the token), and list_proofs, so an agent can route without opening the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition (must have been granted access via a capability token) and a hard availability gate (only works when content escrow was opted in; not yet available today). It does not name a fallback sibling for the case where escrow is absent, so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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