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

Annotations already declare that this is a non-readonly, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds important behavior beyond that: proof creation is conditional on successful verification and requires the signature and timestamp returned from preparation.

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, front-loaded with the action and followed by the key success condition. It contains no redundant or filler text.

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 an output schema, full parameter descriptions, and annotations present, the description covers the essential submission semantics and success condition. It could be slightly stronger by explicitly naming proofable_verify_prepare as the required prior call and clarifying failure behavior.

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%, so most parameter meaning is already documented. The description still adds a critical relational constraint: wallet, checks, data, and chain must match what was used to prepare, and signature/signedTimestamp are the returned values from that step.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: submit a signed Proofable check and create a proof on success. It clearly separates this from preparation by requiring the same wallet, checks, data, and chain used to prepare, plus the returned timestamp and signature.

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?

It gives clear context for use: this is the submission step that consumes values from the preparation step. It does not explicitly name proofable_verify_prepare as the prerequisite tool or state when to use proofable_verify instead, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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