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

Annotations already mark it read-only and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: verification is 'Free,' it checks on-chain, and with tx_hash and proof it uses only chain data rather than this server's index.

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 the core action and scope. Every sentence earns its place by adding either purpose, cost, or verification-path detail.

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 three-parameter verification tool with full schema coverage and annotations but no output schema, the description conveys the conceptual return (whether anchored, by whom, when), cost, and the effect of optional parameters. It leaves only minor gaps around failure behavior and result formatting.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning for tx_hash and proof by explaining that together they let the check rely only on chain data, which clarifies why an agent would supply them.

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 verb and resource: 'Check on the blockchain that a hash was anchored, by whom and when.' It is clearly distinguishable from the anchoring siblings (anchor_hashes, anchor_hash_text) and the status sibling, though it does not explicitly name or contrast them.

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 context is implied by 'With tx_hash and proof from a receipt, the check uses only chain data,' which tells the agent how the optional parameters change the verification path. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over anchor_status or the other siblings, nor any exclusions.

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