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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds real behavioral context: an unfiltered call returns only an index hint, scope=all pages metadata, content requires a known qHash or narrowing filter, and filtered content pages are capped at source. The auth note ('omit identifier when signed in') further clarifies permission behavior.

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?

Three tight sentences with zero filler, front-loading the primary read/search purpose before the modifier flags. The telegraphic phrasing is dense but each clause carries distinct operational information.

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 17 parameters, no required fields, and an output schema present, the description does well to cover the main modes, authentication, and pagination behavior without needing to restate return values. Minor gaps remain for the undocumented traversal and depth parameters.

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 82%, so most parameters are already documented. The description still adds value beyond that by explaining interplay: tags precedence over scope, include=content prerequisites, includeComments requiring qHash, and the scope=all behavior. A few parameters (depth, traverse, searchQuery) remain undocumented in both.

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?

States a specific verb and resource with both operating modes: 'Read a proof by qHash or search proofs by scope, tags, verifier, or text.' This clearly separates it from siblings like proofable_proofs_update and proofable_proofs_check, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

Gives concrete conditional guidance: use include=content for bodies, includeComments with qHash for discussion, and omit identifier when signed in. It lacks explicit routing to alternative siblings (e.g., when to use proofs_update instead), but the when-to-use conditions for each mode are clear.

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