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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds two useful non-annotation facts — that the call is free and that a non-match yields an empty result rather than an error — but nothing about rate limits, auth, or the scope of the notary's records.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and the identifying entity, followed by cost and return shape. 'Free.' is a single word doing real work; no sentence is redundant.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations are rich, so the description need not explain return values, yet it still summarizes them ('entry id, sequence, timestamp, title') helpfully. It covers purpose, cost, and match/no-match behavior; only ancillary details (e.g., what a hash with no attestation means, or next steps after a hit) are absent.

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% for the single parameter ('Hex SHA-256 fingerprint of the work'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description only restates that the input is a SHA-256 content hash, adding no format, encoding, or edge-case detail beyond the schema.

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 precise verb and resource: 'Check whether a SHA-256 content hash has been witnessed by LitWit.' The operation (verify a hash's witness status) is intrinsically distinct from every sibling, all of which are 'info' tools rather than lookups keyed by content hash.

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?

'Free' and 'Returns the matching attestation entries ... or an empty result' implicitly convey the use case (confirm witness status before/after attesting), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no routing to related tools such as witness_attest_info or list_essays.

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