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 lists the return data but does not mention whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or has any side effects. The name 'get_proof' suggests a read operation, but explicit behavioral disclosure is missing.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the purpose. It efficiently communicates the tool's function, though it could be slightly more scannable by using bullet points for the listed components.

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?

With no output schema, the description provides a good list of return elements (canonical form, seal, prevSeal, Merkle root + path, permanence references). However, it does not describe the structure or format of the response, which would help an agent use the output effectively. The completeness is adequate for a simple tool.

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?

There is only one parameter, 'reflection_id', which is described in the schema as 'The reflection id to prove'. The tool description does not add further meaning beyond that, and schema coverage is 100%. The description provides no additional context on the parameter's meaning or format.

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 returns 'everything needed to independently verify a single reflection' and lists specific components (canonical form, seal, prevSeal, Merkle root, permanence references). This distinguishes it from the sibling 'aicom_get_reflection', which likely returns only the reflection content.

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 usage for verification by stating 'return everything needed to independently verify'. While it doesn't explicitly exclude alternative tools, the sibling list includes 'aicom_get_reflection' for basic retrieval, making the use case clear. No when-not or alternative guidance is given, but the context is strong.

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