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

Annotations are all false, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that each attestation extends an "append-only evidence chain" (implying irreversibility) and states the cost per call, both of which add value beyond the annotations. It does not detail authorization or rate limits, but the append-only nature is a key constraint that is disclosed.

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 plus a cost clause, with no filler. The purpose, key behavioral trait (append-only), verifiability, and cost are all front-loaded and concise.

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?

The description, combined with the full schema coverage and presence of an output schema, covers the essential aspects: purpose, behavior (append-only), cost, and parameters. It lacks explicit warnings about prerequisites or failure modes, but the append-only nature is key and stated. Slightly more context about relationship to verification tools would help, but the tool is self-contained for its simple function.

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 input schema provides complete descriptions for all 4 parameters (100% coverage), so a baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond implying that `action_description` and `action_payload` capture the action taken, which is already evident from 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 "Create a hash-chained provenance record for an action you've taken," identifying the specific verb (create) and resource (provenance record). It distinguishes from sibling verification tools like `verify` and `check-peer` by emphasizing record creation and chain extension.

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 phrase "for an action you've taken" sets a clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly exclude verification or other sibling tools, nor does it mention alternatives. This is clear context without exclusions.

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