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

Annotations already establish readOnly and closed-world behavior, and the description adds substantial context on top: a 5-calls-per-minute rate limit, the exact result shape (ok, checked, head_hash), and the enumerated failure reasons (prev_hash_mismatch, hash_mismatch, endpoint_missing). The credential-free note removes a common pre-call blocker.

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?

One dense paragraph that leads with the action, then bounds, then return shape, then rate limit and auth. Every clause carries information an agent needs; nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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, but the description fully compensates by naming the success fields and every error reason. Combined with the limit and default-window rules, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: the 1000-entry cap and the behavior when from/to are omitted. It does not clarify id format or whether the range is inclusive of both endpoints beyond the schema's wording.

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: 'Recompute the public record's hash chain server-side over [from, to]'. This is clearly distinct from sibling tools like muhabbit_record_entries and muhabbit_record_head, which read entries rather than re-derive and verify the chain.

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?

Gives usable invocation context: the default window when no bounds are supplied ('the latest 1000'), the hard cap, and that no credentials are needed. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools (e.g. when to verify versus when to just read entries), so it falls short of a 5.

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