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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the hashing, timestamping, attestation, and deterministic nature. However, it does not explicitly state if the receipt is stored or how it is returned, and lacks rate limit info. Still, it provides good behavioral context.

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, information-dense sentence with clear structure using dashes. It includes pricing and purpose, but could be slightly more concise by removing minor details. Still efficient.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should detail the return format. It mentions 'signed receipt' with hash and timestamp but not the structure (e.g., JSON, JWT). While it gives enough to infer, it's not fully explicit, leaving some ambiguity.

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% with detailed descriptions for both parameters, including mutual exclusivity and size limits. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond the schema, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'notarize' and the resource 'content' into a 'signed, offline-verifiable provenance receipt'. It differentiates from sibling tools like fetch or extract by emphasizing it produces a cryptographic receipt with a third-party witness.

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 explicitly says when to use inline content or a fetched URL, and that they are mutually exclusive. It contrasts with sha256 alone and notes the cost, providing clear context for when to use this tool.

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