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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond these: the onchain batching delay ('next weekly Base batch'), the privacy guarantee (only hash sent), and the zero-cost aspect. It does not contradict any annotation and provides useful operational detail for the agent.

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 well-organized paragraph that front-loads the core action and immediately explains why and when to use it. Every sentence earns its place: purpose, usage contexts, privacy, mechanics, and cost. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (write, non-idempotent, delayed onchain effect), the description covers all critical aspects: what happens (lands in batch and Ethereum root), cost (free), prerequisites (none), and the long-term verification capability. An output schema exists, so return values are covered elsewhere. An agent has enough to decide and safely call this tool.

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%: both 'label' and 'sha256' have descriptive text including the shasum command and security warning. The description reinforces the hash-only policy but adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already carries the full parameter documentation.

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 states a specific action ('Anchor the SHA-256 of any file onchain') with a specific resource (file hash) and outcome (proving existence by a time). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like verify_anchor and other submit_* tools by focusing on the anchoring action and its priority-preservation purpose.

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 explicitly says 'Use it the moment you produce something whose PRIORITY matters' and provides concrete examples (security finding, research, draft). It also clarifies what the tool does NOT do ('You send only the hash, never the file') and implies a contrast with verification tools. This is more than sufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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