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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It covers the hashing, server-assigned timestamp, ML-DSA-65 countersignature, optional EIP-191 and ML-DSA owner endorsements, and the explicit caveat that it never proves authorship or uniqueness. It also mentions the private-lane constraint. It lacks details like idempotency or whether repeated hashes are deduplicated, but the core behaviors are transparent.

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 dense but efficient, with every sentence contributing meaning. It front-loads the core purpose and constraints, then moves to optional fields and verification. It is not overly verbose given the cryptographic complexity, though it could be slightly trimmed without losing value.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain what the tool returns. It mentions the countersignature {h, ts} and verification flow, but does not specify the exact response format, error conditions, or whether the output is a certificate or proof object. This is a notable gap for a tool with no output schema.

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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds valuable semantics: it explains the cryptographic context (EIP-191 over 'null-notary/owner/v1|<h>'), the relationship between ownerMeta and the required ownerSig2, and explicitly warns that h must never be the content. This goes beyond the schema's field descriptions.

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's purpose: proof-of-existence by hashing a document locally and sending only the hash. It explicitly distinguishes what it proves (existence-by-time) from what it doesn't (authorship, uniqueness), and references verification via null_prov_issuer. This makes it easy for an agent to understand the tool's role among its siblings.

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 gives strong usage context: hash locally, send only the hash, use the stdio door for private lane, and verify with null_prov_issuer + SDK. It also explains conditions for optional fields (ownerSig2 required if ownerMeta and PQ key). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternative tools like null_prov_mint or null_prov_issuer beyond verification.

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