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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully adds that the proof is 'checkable offline with the public verifier,' which hints at statelessness and no server dependency, but it omits error behaviour (e.g. leaf_index beyond tree_size), whether the proof is tied to a signed checkpoint, and any rate/permission 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?

Two tight sentences with the core operation front-loaded and the offline-verification note as secondary value. No filler or repetition, though it is quite terse relative to what an agent might need.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the basic contract but leaves the return shape (proof structure, hashes, checkpoint binding) and failure modes unstated. It is adequate but thin for a cryptographic-proof endpoint.

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 100% and both parameters are documented in the schema (leaf_index position, optional tree_size). The description only restates their role ('entry at leaf_index', 'optionally at a given tree_size') without adding format or default semantics, so the baseline 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?

The description states a concrete verb+resource: it returns a proof that the entry at leaf_index is included in the tree, with an optional tree_size scope. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_consistency_proof by naming inclusion rather than consistency, though it never explicitly says 'retrieve/returns' or names the sibling.

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?

Usage is implied (use this to prove inclusion, and the proof is verifiable offline) but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to pick this over get_consistency_proof, and no stated prerequisite such as needing a checkpoint or a known tree_size.

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