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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the return is a partially-signed transaction co-signed by the operator and that idempotency_key prevents duplicate transaction construction. However, it does not state permanence, fee implications, required permissions, or api_key handling, which are significant for a write-to-chain operation.

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 three compact sentences with zero waste. It front-loads the action, then explains the return value and required next step, then covers retry behavior.

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 complex on-chain mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema parameter documentation, the description covers the core workflow and return shape well. It still omits important context about authentication, algorithm selection, and permanence or authorization requirements, leaving an agent with gaps before invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for five undocumented parameters. It explains content_hash, from_address, and idempotency_key meaningfully, but says nothing about api_key or algorithm, leaving two parameters without semantic guidance.

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 states a specific verb and resource: anchoring content_hash on chain. It also explains the immediate workflow, returning a partially-signed transaction for the caller to witness and submit. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like check_anchor_status, so it stops short of a 5.

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 use case is clear: prepare an on-chain anchor for a content hash, then add a witness for from_address and submit. It also explains the optional idempotency_key retry behavior. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, so it lacks the explicit routing guidance of a 5.

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