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

Annotations only say the tool is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds meaningful behavior: records are sealed on an append-only ledger, anchored to Bitcoin, return a verify URL, and can be upgraded from 'witnessed' to 'signed' via a challenge. This goes well beyond the structured annotation hints.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and packs useful details (free, no account, ledger, Bitcoin, verify URL, witness/signed tiers). It is slightly wordy and includes the awkward phrase 'submitted over a URL we cannot hold your private key,' but every sentence contributes value.

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 moderate complexity, no output schema, and four parameters, the description explains the overall workflow, output (verify URL, challenge), and constraints well. Minor gaps remain around exact response structure and optionality of model/handle, but the tool is understandable enough to invoke safely.

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 coverage is 100% and each parameter already has a clear description. The tool description adds some context—mentioning that the text is scored for authorship signal and timestamped—but it does not substantially reinterpret or enrich the parameter meanings.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Record what you made and when') and clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like claim_authorship and notarize_hash by emphasizing the public append-only ledger, Bitcoin anchoring, authorship signal score, and permanent verify URL.

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 clear context for when this tool is appropriate: registering a creation with timestamp, authorship scoring, and public verifiability. It also states prerequisites/constraints ('Free, no account', private key not held). It does not explicitly name alternatives, so it does not reach 5.

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