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

Annotations cover the safety profile (not read-only, open-world, not idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds context beyond them: the 100-hash batch cap, the per-hash receipt contents (tx_hash, Merkle proof, block, time), and the auth requirement. Nothing contradicts the annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, followed by return shape and auth requirement. No filler; each clause carries distinct information.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the receipt fields an agent will receive, plus batch limits and authentication. Combined with annotations covering safety, an agent has everything needed 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 both parameters (hashes with '1-100 hex SHA-256', label noted as server-index-only) are already documented in the schema. The description only echoes the batch ceiling and adds no format or labeling detail beyond it, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (anchor), resource (SHA-256 hashes), target (Privi chain) and scope (up to 100 per transaction). It also implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling anchor_hash_text by operating on pre-computed hashes rather than text, and names anchor_verify as the downstream counterpart.

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?

Gives a clear prerequisite (API key via Authorization: Bearer) and points to anchor_verify for the verification step, which tells the agent when this fits in a workflow. It does not explicitly say when to prefer anchor_hash_text or anchor_status instead, so the sibling routing is left to inference.

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