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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context by explicitly stating the operation is limited to 'public non-secret' metadata, signaling that no sensitive proof data will be exposed. It does not cover error behavior or not-found handling, but for a simple getter the key behavioral risk is addressed.

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?

A single clear sentence with no filler. The verb and resource are front-loaded, and the meaningful qualifier 'public non-secret' earns its place by setting expectations about access scope.

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?

The tool is low-complexity with one string parameter and no output schema. The description states the resource type and access scope but omits details about return fields, error behavior, and how to obtain a valid proof ID. It is adequate but not fully 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 0%, so the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. It only restates 'by proof ID,' which adds little beyond the parameter name proof_id. The description does not clarify the expected format, origin, or examples of the ID.

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 clearly specifies the verb ('Retrieve'), the resource ('AccordTrace proof metadata'), and the lookup key ('by proof ID'). It differentiates the tool from siblings like accord_trace_create_proof and accord_trace_verify by focusing specifically on read-only metadata retrieval.

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 description implies the tool should be used when you need public, non-secret proof metadata and have a proof ID. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so the guidance is only implicit.

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