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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses cost ($0.05 USDC on Base), the proof-not-token semantics, that no value crosses chains, and the backend RFC-stage status with backend_pending behavior. This is rich, non-obvious behavioral information.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by target, semantic caveat, cost, and status. Every sentence contributes essential information with no fluff.

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?

The description covers purpose, verification target, semantic behavior, cost, and backend status. It mentions backend_pending as a return value but does not describe a successful response shape; however, no output schema exists, and the description is otherwise comprehensive for a complex tool.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters. The description adds no param-specific syntax or format details beyond naming the key inputs (state hash and DID) in the purpose statement. Thus baseline 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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Produce a zero-knowledge attestation of an agent state hash + DID.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like zk_verify_proof, zk_query_attestation, and zk_anchor_to_base.

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 provides concrete context for when to use the tool (e.g., when targeting Aleo snarkVM) and a clear boundary ('Attestation-only — emits a proof, not a token; no value crosses chains'), which implicitly tells the user not to use it for token transfers. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or include formal 'use X instead' guidance.

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