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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds one genuinely useful trait beyond that: the proof is verifiable offline with a public verifier. It does not describe the proof's structure or any error behavior when leaf_index exceeds tree_size.

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 purpose front-loaded and no filler. Nothing is wasted, though the second sentence is a fragment that could be integrated more cleanly.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what a 'proof' returns (hash path, root, verification steps), and it only gestures at offline verifiability. It is adequate for selecting the tool but thin on what the agent will actually receive.

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%, so both leaf_index and tree_size are already documented in the schema, including tree_size's optionality. The description only restates those same facts, adding no new format or defaulting detail.

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: producing a proof that the entry at leaf_index is included in the tree. The leaf_index/inclusion framing implicitly separates it from the sibling get_consistency_proof, but the description never names or contrasts that sibling 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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus get_consistency_proof or get_checkpoint, and no stated prerequisites. The mention of offline verification hints at intent but does not tell the agent which tool to pick for which task.

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