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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description restates 'Read-only' and adds the useful 'no proof' note, which clarifies that the schema's proof-related parameters are optional, but beyond that it discloses no rate limits, auth requirements or failure behavior.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool reads, followed by usage, the sibling alternative, and the read-only property. No sentence is wasted and nothing important is buried.

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 the annotations carry the safety profile. Combined with full schema coverage, the description supplies everything an agent needs to select and invoke this read-only audit tool correctly.

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 all four auth/proof parameters are already fully documented in the schema. The description only touches them obliquely via 'no proof'; baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 (Reads) and resource (the Hold, the city's append-only chain of seals) and enumerates the payload contents (verification recipe, named breaks, earlier ledger). It explicitly names the sibling it is not (hold_receipt), so an agent can route between 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 a clear use case ('audit the city's record') and an explicit alternative with its selecting condition ('For one receipt by hash or version use hold_receipt'). It does not address other plausibly adjacent siblings such as seal_history or checkpoint, so the guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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