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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and explicitly states 'Free' and 'Read-only', disclosing cost and side-effect profile. It also lists supported circuits, giving a preview of expected content, though it doesn't detail return format or error handling.

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 extremely concise, with the key action front-loaded. Every sentence adds valuable information: enumeration scope, circuit categories, cost, and safety. No wasted words.

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?

For a simple list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is quite complete: it states what is listed, the specific circuits, that it's free and read-only. It could mention the structure of the output (e.g., list of circuit names and fingerprints), but is otherwise contextually sufficient.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by explaining what the tool enumerates, which is more than the empty schema provides. No parameter explanation needed.

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 enumerates supported circuits and verification key fingerprints, with specific circuit names (Varuna, Groth16, Plonk, Risc0, Plonky2). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform anchoring, attestation, querying, or verification.

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 clear context by categorizing circuits as primary, research-stage, and future, indicating the maturity and availability of each. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this over alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent to understand it's a listing/exploration tool.

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