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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does state the two properties an agent most needs: 'Read-only and free', which covers both the readOnly safety profile and cost. It further implies the returned facts (anchored?, when, operator, rule version), partially covering output despite no output schema. It stops short of describing failure behavior for an unknown hash.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the input provenance; every clause carries information and none is filler.

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 single-param read-only verification tool with no output schema, the description supplies purpose, input provenance, key return facts, and safety/cost profile. The only omission is behavior on an unknown or malformed hash, which is minor for this tool class.

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 the schema already documents the hash as a 0x... 32-byte value, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema by tying the parameter to its producing tools, telling the agent where the value must come from rather than just its format.

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?

Specific verb (verify) plus resource (an existing anchoring proof), and it names exactly the questions answered: whether the file was anchored, when, by whom, and under which rule version. It is cleanly distinguishable from the sibling tracea_anchor_demarche, which creates rather than verifies.

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?

It tells the agent the precondition for calling it: 'Use the recordHash returned by tracea_check_demarche / tracea_anchor_demarche', which is effectively a routing rule to the sibling tools that produce the input. No explicit when-not-to-use case, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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