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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'Read only' adds no new safety information. It does add the behavioral detail that the endpoint returns exactly one GRITH-HOLD/1 receipt, but it does not disclose prerequisites like the controller-proof flow.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence that states the HTTP method, path, key query selectors, and result cardinality without padding. The redundant 'Read only' is minor and does not detract from overall conciseness.

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 tool with six parameters, zero required parameters, and security-sensitive proof parameters, the description is too thin to fully orient an agent. It omits how to use the controller-key proof, when hash vs version is appropriate, and what distinguishes this from hold_trail, though the schema and output schema offset some of this.

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?

With 67% schema coverage, the schema already documents nonce, leave_token, controller_signature, and controller_public_key. The description's '?hash= or ?version=' adds useful meaning for the two undocumented selectors, implying they are alternative identifiers, but it does not elaborate on formats or combination rules.

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 clearly identifies the operation: a GET call to /api/hold that returns a single GRITH-HOLD/1 receipt, which matches the tool name and separates it from list-style siblings like hold_trail. It stops short of an explicit comparison to sibling tools, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

The description gives the endpoint but no guidance on when to choose hold_receipt over alternatives such as hold_trail, nor what circumstances require hash versus version. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned.

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