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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a refusal condition and a verify-before-citing workflow, but leaves 'status confirmed' and 'proofFile' undefined and does not explain failure behavior or return shape.

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 compact sentences, but semicolon-heavy phrasing and undefined terms such as 'slug' and 'proofFile' make it cryptic rather than efficiently front-loaded.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description should explain the receipt, the hash/height inputs, and failure modes. It gives only a terse citation rule and leaves the return value and parameters largely opaque.

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 explain both hash and height. It only mentions height as part of the output citation 'slug@height' and never explains hash; 'slug' is not tied to the hash parameter.

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 phrase 'Read earliest public receipt' identifies a read operation on an earliest receipt, but the opening 'cite slug@height' is undefined jargon and the description never clearly explains what first_at returns relative to verify or stamp.

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 gives a condition for citing ('only when status confirmed and proofFile exists; else refuse') and points to verify for rechecking, but it does not say when to call first_at itself instead of verify or stamp.

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