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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description reinforces and extends this by explaining the public no-credential access model. It also discloses the record's signed nature and the specific data categories included, which is useful beyond the annotated hints. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core resource and contents, and the second sentence adds the critical access and trust context. Every phrase contributes to helping an agent understand what the tool does and why it exists.

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?

Given the read-only annotations, a fully self-describing schema with aliases, and the presence of an output schema, the description provides all necessary context. It explains the record's purpose, contents, public accessibility, and verification intent. Nothing essential for selecting or invoking the tool correctly is missing.

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?

The schema fully documents both parameters, including that task_id and proof_id are equivalent aliases, so the description does not need to add parameter-level detail. The description does not introduce additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. This matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 resource as 'the signed record for a completed task' and enumerates its contents: agent, model, cost, timestamps, and cryptographic verification material. It also includes the verb 'retrievable,' making the operation unambiguous. The public-audit framing distinguishes it from verification or search siblings.

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 strong contextual guidance by stating that the record is publicly retrievable without an account or key, and that its purpose is verification by parties who trust neither party. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but it clearly implies the tool is for retrieval of execution records rather than verification or search. This is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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