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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value by disclosing what is exported, that args are redacted, and the offline verification recipe sha256(prev_hash + canonical(entry)), plus the account-key auth requirement.

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 short sentences: output/scope first, verification method second, prerequisite last. No filler, no repetition of the schema, and the most important information is 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 two-parameter read-only export with no output schema, the description covers contents, integrity semantics, verification, and auth. It stops short of saying the export format/channel (e.g., JSON blob vs. downloadable artifact) or any size limits, which is the only remaining gap.

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 both required params (runId, proxyId) are documented in the schema, including the run/session semantics and the cross-reference to okgate_create_proxy. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 is correct.

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 ('Export a run's hash-chained audit entries ... with the Merkle root') and enumerates the payload contents (prev_hash, hash, redacted args). This is clearly distinct from siblings like okgate_get_run or okgate_spend_report without needing to open any schema.

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?

Names a use context ('for disputes and questionnaires') and a prerequisite ('Requires an account key'), which implies when to reach for it. However, it never contrasts with okgate_get_run or any other sibling, and gives no when-not guidance, so routing still requires inference.

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