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

Annotations already declare this as a safe read-only operation in a closed world, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful scope detail by saying private signatures and signing keys are excluded, but it does not cover ordering, pagination behavior, or other operational context beyond the schema.

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 definition is a single economical sentence that front-loads the returned fields and the ledger scope. Every phrase contributes meaning, and there is no 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 simple read-only listing tool, the description states the returned content well enough that an output schema is not needed. The main remaining gap is the absence of sibling differentiation and operational details such as ordering, but the core call context is complete.

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 100%, and the single limit parameter is fully documented in the schema with its default and maximum. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource: it returns dates, content digests and chain hashes from the public daily proof anchor ledger. That is clear and concrete, but it does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as get_proof_summary or get_accuracy_proof.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase 'public daily proof anchor ledger' and 'excluding private signatures and signing keys' suggests this is for public anchor data, not private signing material. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternative such as get_proof_summary.

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