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

With only readOnly/destructive annotations present, the description adds substantial behavioral context: the log is append-only, verification is cryptographic, `intact=false` surfaces `broken_at_seq` for the first altered row, and history survives deletion via a `task.deleted` event. This is exactly the kind of tamper-evidence semantics an agent cannot infer from 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 sentences plus a doc link, all front-loaded with the core action and then the failure-mode semantics. Every sentence earns its place, though the middle clauses stack several concepts quickly.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly compensates by naming key return fields (`intact`, `broken_at_seq`) and the deletion-event behavior. It stops short of describing the overall response shape or the effect of `include_events`, but remains usable.

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 `task_id` (including URL acceptance) and `include_events` are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond this, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource ('return the full append-only transparency-log history') plus an additional distinct action ('cryptographically verify the hash chain'), which clearly separates it from siblings like get_task_activity or get_task. An agent can identify the tool without opening the schema.

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 conveys the verification context but never states when to choose this over a sibling such as get_task_activity for plain history reads. Usage is implied by the verification framing rather than explicitly routed.

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