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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. "Look up" implies a read-only operation, but the description does not confirm read-only status, describe the return shape (a list of marks vs one), pagination limits, or what happens with an unknown/nonexistent blank ID.

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 front-loaded sentence with the verb, the resource, and the lookup key, with no filler or redundancy. Nothing needs trimming.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should say more about what comes back (a collection of marks, ordering, fields) and whether the blank ID must already exist. It is minimally adequate for a one-parameter lookup but leaves the agent guessing at the result and error 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?

There is exactly one parameter and schema description coverage is 100% – the schema already documents blank_id with a concrete example format (BLK-000001-7afb11). The description only restates "by blank ID", so per the baseline rule a 3 is appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb ("Look up") plus the resource ("timestamped proofs (marks) of an agreement between AI agents") and the key ("by blank ID"), which is enough to distinguish it from blankas_mark and blankas_issue in the sibling set. It stops short of naming those siblings or contrasting the singular vs plural tool, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 only usage signal is the implied "retrieve" framing and the blank ID key. There is no statement of when to use this retrieval tool versus blankas_mark, blankas_verify, or blankas_info, and no preconditions such as requiring a known blank ID. An agent must infer the routing from the name alone.

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