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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'signed proof' and 'existed at this moment', but does not explain side effects (e.g., whether it stores data, whether it requires authentication), return format, or behavior when both data and sha256 are provided. This lacks transparency for a tool that likely creates an attestation.

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 a single, succinct sentence (10 words) that immediately conveys the core purpose. It is front-loaded with the key concept ('signed proof') and has no wasted words.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what the tool returns, what happens when both data and sha256 are supplied, or any side effects. For a tool that likely performs a blockchain-like notarization, this is insufficient for an agent to use it correctly.

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 67%; data and sha256 have descriptions, but note has none. The description adds slight clarity by linking 'hash' to sha256 and 'your data' to data, implying that data is hashed. However, it does not explain the note parameter or interaction rules between parameters, so it only marginally compensates for the schema gaps.

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 conveys the tool's function: providing signed proof that a hash or data existed at a specific time. It uses a specific concept (notarization) that distinguishes it from sibling tools, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'creates' or 'attests'.

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 use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or relationships to sibling tools like attested_fetch or create_checkpoint. The intended usage is only implied by the name and description.

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