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

Annotations already declare a non-idempotent, open-world write, and the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the target chain, that all hashes go in one transaction, the receipt fields returned (tx_hash, Merkle proof, block, time), and the Bearer API key requirement. It does not discuss cost, irreversibility, or failure/partial-batch behavior, which would matter for an on-chain write.

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 with the core action and batch limit front-loaded, followed by the return shape and then the auth prerequisite. No filler or repetition of the title.

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 carries the return-shape burden and does so (tx_hash, Merkle proof, block, time), plus the auth and chain details. Missing are cost/gas expectations and what happens if anchoring fails mid-call, which are relevant for a non-idempotent on-chain write.

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 explains both parameters, including the '1-100 hex SHA-256' constraint and that label is off-chain index-only. The description restates the 100 cap without adding format or validation nuance, 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 and resource ('Anchor up to 100 hashes on chain') and names the chain in use (Base pending mainnet). The batch-of-hashes framing implicitly separates it from anchor_hash_text, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

Usage is implied by the batch limit and by the explicit pointer to anchor_verify for checking receipts, and the auth requirement is stated. There is no explicit 'use this when you already have hashes, use anchor_hash_text when you have raw text' guidance or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the choice among siblings.

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