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

Annotations already cover the read-only and closed-world profile, so the description's added value is real: it discloses the free/no-credentials access model, the chain-ordered pagination contract via next_from, and the exact hash construction. It does not state ordering guarantees on page boundaries or what happens when an id is out of range, which would be the remaining behavioral gaps.

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?

Front-loads what the tool returns before the technical hash detail, and every clause carries information. The hash-recipe sentence is dense and slightly specialized, but it is justified for a verification-oriented endpoint, and the parenthetical about credentials is well placed.

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 correctly compensates by enumerating the returned fields and the pagination token. 'Frozen fields' remains undefined, leaving some ambiguity about the record payload shape, which prevents a 5.

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%, with both `from` and `limit` fully documented including defaults and bounds, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only loosely reinforces this ('from an id', 'Page with next_from') and adds no format or edge-case detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline 3.

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 ('Raw public record entries in chain order from an id') and names the returned fields (frozen fields, prev_hash, hash), so an agent knows this is the raw ledger fetch. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like muhabbit_record_head or muhabbit_record_verify, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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?

'For offline verification' and 'Page with next_from' imply the use case and pagination flow, and 'Free: no credentials needed' signals costless access. However, there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over record_head or record_verify, so the agent must infer the routing from the sibling names.

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