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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey safety and side effects. It clearly indicates a retrieval operation ('Get'), implying read-only behavior, but does not mention permissions, error handling, or the nature of the returned data. The philosophical 'trusting no one' adds no operational clarity.

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 a single sentence of 14 words, efficiently conveying the tool's purpose. Every word contributes to the core message, and the philosophical tagline 'trusting no one' reinforces the tool's intent without bloating the description.

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 the minimal complexity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description provides a general sense of return content but leaves details undefined, such as what a 'disclosure bundle' contains or how verification works. For a niche tool, additional context about the verification process would be helpful.

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?

With a single parameter 'slug' already described in the schema, the description adds no parameter-specific detail. Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies; the description's mention of 'exhibit' implicitly relates to slug but doesn't enhance its meaning.

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 specifies the tool's function with a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('exhibit's disclosure bundle and independent verifiers'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_exhibit by emphasizing verification against Bitcoin. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 phrase 'check it against Bitcoin, trusting no one' implies the tool is for verification scenarios, but the description does not explicitly state when to choose this over get_exhibit or other siblings. It provides context but no exclusion criteria.

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