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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses statelessness, deterministic operation, signed receipts, pricing ($0.006/call), and keyless x402 on Base mainnet USDC. No contradictions or hidden side effects.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus pricing. Every word adds value, front-loaded with the core purpose. 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?

Given 4 parameters and no output schema, the description explains inputs, outputs (change-proof, receipt), and cost. It could mention output format details, but overall sufficiently complete for agent decision.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds value by differentiating between using prevHash (hash-only change-proof) and prevText (full line-level diff). This clarifies behavior 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's function: taking a URL and prior content hash or text, refetching, and producing a deterministic change-proof and a new signed receipt. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'fetch' and 'notarize' by emphasizing diffing and tamper-evident audit trail.

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 implies use cases (checking page changes, audit trail) but does not explicitly specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'fetch' or 'notarize'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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