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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, and the description adds useful semantics about what the returned timestamp proves and does not prove. It does not say how a mismatch is signaled, nor what happens with zero or both inputs (required parameters = 0), which are meaningful behavioral gaps for a lookup tool.

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 tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the action and its output, followed by a scope caveat. 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?

With no output schema, the description adequately states the return value (on-chain timestamp) and bounds the meaning of the proof. The main remaining gap is mismatch/error behavior and input-selection rules.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden and does partially compensate: it defines both inputs ('SHA-256 fingerprint' and 'paper slug') and the 'or' relationship between them. It omits format details for slug, precedence when both are supplied, and the behavior when neither is given.

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: checks whether a SHA-256 fingerprint or paper slug matches an anchored paper and returns the on-chain timestamp. It is clearly a verification operation and implicitly distinct from retrieval siblings like get_paper, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 caveat that the proof shows existence at a time but not correctness or peer review gives the agent interpretive guidance for the result. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus cite_paper, get_paper, or search_papers, and no statement about which input to supply.

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