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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the proof is Ed25519-signed, timestamped, offline-verifiable, and that the issuer never sees the content if only a hash is sent. It also states the cost and payment method, providing comprehensive behavioral transparency.

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 somewhat verbose and repeats key information (e.g., 'Notarize a SHA-256 hash...' appears twice). While it is well-structured with clear sections, it could be more concise without losing content.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description sufficiently explains the return format (a timestamped, Ed25519-signed proof-of-existence receipt verifiable offline). Given the tool's simplicity and the richness of sibling tools, the description provides adequate context for an AI agent to use it 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% with clear descriptions for each parameter. The description adds value by explaining the relationship between 'hash' and 'content' (alternative inputs), the purpose of 'memo', and content size limits, which goes 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 clearly states the tool notarizes a document or data hash by submitting a SHA-256 hash and returning a timestamped, Ed25519-signed proof-of-existence receipt. It explicitly distinguishes itself from blockchain-anchored or legal timestamps, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool (to prove existence at a point in time) and what it is not (not a legal or blockchain timestamp). It also mentions the pricing model and payment method, giving clear context for usage.

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