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

Even without annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: it is a certification action (non-destructive), returns permanent artifacts (cert_id, verify_url, hash), and includes rate limits (5/day free, unlimited with pass). This is sufficient for an agent to understand the impact and constraints.

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?

The description is well-structured with clear sections: purpose, use cases, return values, agent instructions, and pricing. It is concise without being terse, though it could be slightly more compact by removing redundant phrases like 'tamper-proof, publicly verifiable forever' which is already implied by 'cryptographically certify.'

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?

Given the tool's complexity (3 simple parameters, no output schema), the description provides all necessary context: what it does, why to use it, what it returns, and usage limits. It adequately covers the tool's role in an agent's workflow, though it could mention that the returned verify_url is the primary output an agent should share.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats parameter descriptions from the schema (e.g., 'content' as the text to certify) but adds context like 'AI output, decision, plan, analysis' for content. The additional context is helpful but does not significantly extend beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Cryptographically certify any AI-generated content with a permanent SHA-256 provenance certificate.' It specifies the domain (AI-generated content), technology (SHA-256), and key features (tamper-proof, publicly verifiable). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like zambot_verify.

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 description provides explicit use cases such as 'certifying AI outputs before sharing' and 'audit trails for agent decisions.' It also gives direct agent usage instructions: 'Call after any important tool result to create a receipt then share the verify_url.' However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives.

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