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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burdencars and does so thoroughly. It explains that pre-reveal only the receipt is shown, post-reveal the claim text and salt appear, and the nonce path returns the sha256 of answer bytes, sequence number, and once sealed the opBNB batch transaction and Merkle path.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first phrase, but the second sentence is a dense run-on packed with several conditional behaviors. All content is relevant precisely because of the tool's variety of states, yet a light restructuring would improve readability.

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 status-checking tool with no annotations but a rich output schema, the description covers the major cases: pre-reveal, post-reveal, and paid-answer receipts with their eventual sealing details. It stops short of specifying mutual exclusivity of parameters or behavior when a nonce has not yet been sealed, leaving some edge cases to the output schema.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It indicates that 'tenant plus seq or hash' are the claim identifiers and that 'nonce' switches to a paid-answer receipt, giving the agent meaningful parameter roles that the schema lacks. It does not fully specify combination rules, like whether nonce replaces seq/hash or whether hash must be hex-encoded.

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 names a specific verb ('Check') and a precise resource ('one sealed claim') addressed by tenant plus seq or hash, which clearly differentiates this from broader sibling tools like list_attestations or attestation_stats. It also covers the nonce variant for paid-answer receipts, leaving little ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 gives helpful temporal context (before vs. after reveal time) and distinguishes the nonce-based paid-answer path, but it never explicitly states when to choose attest_status over sibling tools such as verify_reveal, list_attestations, or attest. Usage is implied rather than directly routed.

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