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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the description is not burdened with the safety profile. It nonetheless adds real behavioral context by disclosing that it performs a chain check and that no proof is required. 'With the chain check' and 'no proof' are terse, but they go beyond the structured fields.

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 front-loaded sentences: purpose and lookup keys first, then usage, then the sibling pointer and safety note. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description completes the usage/routing story, though the domain jargon ('bed', 'city nonce') leaves some operational context to the schema rather than the description.

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 documents all six parameters, including the heavy leave_token/auth and controller-signature fields. The description adds only the 'by hash or version' alternation, which is a marginal semantic addition over what the schema already conveys, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Returns one Hold receipt') plus the lookup keys ('by hash or version') and the added 'chain check' behavior. It also explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling hold_trail, so an agent can separate the two without opening either schema.

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 concrete when-to-use context ('verify the receipt you got when you presented or took a bed') and names the alternative with its selecting condition ('For the whole chain use hold_trail'). Both the intended scenario and the routing decision are explicit.

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