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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the sparse annotations: it states the proof is tamper-evident and timestamped, that it attests recording by Accord Trace, and explicitly disclaims guarantees of truth or legal validity. This helps set expectations for a write-like action despite the absence of a readOnlyHint.

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?

Three sentences, all informative, with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. The example list is slightly long but earns its place by clarifying the range of notarizable items.

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 description covers the when, the what, and the input mode, and its caveat about truth/legal validity is valuable. It does not describe the return value or post-conditions, but for a tool with no output schema, the definition is still sufficient for an agent to invoke it 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents data, hash, and metadata. The description reinforces the data-or-hash choice ('Submit either content or its SHA-256 hash') but does not add substantial meaning beyond the schema.

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 opens with a concrete verb and resource: 'Create a tamper-evident timestamped proof,' followed by a broad but specific list of supported inputs. It clearly distinguishes the notarization action from sibling tools like get_proof, hash, and verify by its recording/attestation role.

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 phrase 'when future independent integrity verification may be useful' provides clear usage context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the condition is actionable enough for an agent to decide when this tool applies.

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