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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load. It does disclose a meaningful ownership constraint (only the api_key that created the entry will work), which is real value. It does not say whether the call is read-only, what happens if the proof_id is unknown, or what the response contains.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the lookup action, followed by the prerequisite. Zero filler.

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 a two-parameter lookup with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the action, the key, and the auth scoping constraint. Remaining gaps (not-found behavior, return contents) are moderate but not disqualifying for a simple retrieval tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate: it does clarify that api_key must be the one that created the entry and that proof_id identifies the prepared item. Parameter formats (proof_id shape, where it comes from) and error semantics remain undocumented.

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+resource: looks up a previously prepared anchor or decision-log entry, keyed by proof_id. This implicitly contrasts with prepare_anchor/prepare_decision_log (which create) and verify_proof (which validates), but no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

'Previously prepared' implies this is a post-creation lookup, and 'Requires the api_key that created it' states a prerequisite. However there is no explicit when-to-use vs. verify_proof/verify_decision_chain guidance and no stated failure conditions.

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