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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers two real disclosures: strict data minimization (only the deal hash is stored, never the terms) and a 72-hour retention window. It omits idempotency/duplicate-mark behavior, auth requirements, and what a successful call yields, which keeps it below 5.

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?

A single tight sentence with the core action and the two most important constraints (data scope, retention) front-loaded. No filler, nothing repeated from the schema.

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?

Inputs are fully covered by the schema and no output schema exists, so the description's job is mostly to convey scope and lifecycle; it does that with the hash-only and 72-hour notes. It could still say what the call returns or whether the blank is consumed, but the essentials for correct invocation are present.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (blank, deal_hash, signatures) are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces that the hash is the unit of record and implies the signature object's role, but adds no format or binding details beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 action and resource: it registers a timestamp proof that both agents signed an agreement. The clarifying clause "registers only the deal hash, never the terms" pins down exactly what is stored. It does not name or differentiate from siblings such as blankas_marks or blankas_verify, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. that a blank must first come from blankas_issue), and no routing to blankas_verify for later verification or blankas_marks for listing. Workflow position is only inferable from the phrase "timestamp proof".

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