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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: the append-only nature, the meaning of intact=false and broken_at_seq, and that deletion produces a task.deleted event and history survives deletion. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three dense, front-loaded sentences with zero fluff. The first sentence states the core function, the second clarifies the failure indicator, and the third covers the deletion edge case. Every sentence earns its place.

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 compensates by explaining key return fields (intact, broken_at_seq, task.deleted event, final sha256) and the deletion survival behavior. It does not enumerate the full event list shape or auth requirements, but given moderate complexity and the schema covering parameters, this is largely complete.

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 the schema already documents task_id and include_events thoroughly. The description doesn't add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, but it also doesn't need to; 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 specific verb-resource pairing: 'Return the full append-only transparency-log history for a task' plus 'cryptographically verify the hash chain.' This is distinct from siblings like get_task_activity or list_project_events, and the tamper-evidence verification makes its purpose uniquely identifiable.

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 description implies usage for tamper-evident verification but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternatives. In a large sibling list with get_task, get_task_activity, and list_project_events, an agent is not directed on when to pick this over those.

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