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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses a key trait—evidence is not shown—implying privacy preservation. However, it doesn't state whether the operation is read-only, what it returns, or any side effects, leaving significant gaps.

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?

Single sentence, seven words, zero fluff. The key information is front-loaded: the verb and object appear immediately, with the privacy qualifier appended. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given no output schema, no annotations, and a terse description, the tool's behavior remains under-specified. It doesn't explain the proof type, the response format, or the meaning of the parameters. For a tool in a sibling set involving proofs and verifications, more context is needed.

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 schema has 50% description coverage: obligation_id has an example (DORA-TPR-03) but entity_id is bare. The description adds no parameter meaning, failing to clarify what entity_id represents or how the two parameters relate to proving an obligation.

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 a specific verb ('Prove') and resource ('obligation fulfilled'), with a useful qualifier ('without showing evidence') that hints at a zero-knowledge proof. It distinguishes from sibling tools like verify_* by focusing on generating a proof, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings or when not to use it. The description is a single claim with no context about prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions.

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