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

With no annotations provided, the description takes full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Safe, idempotent read-only operation', 'No destructive actions or side effects', and adds a concrete rate limit of 100 requests/hour/IP, which is exactly the kind of context an agent needs.

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 organized into clearly labeled sections (behavior, rate limits, when to use, when not, parameters) with no filler. Each sentence carries operational information, and the most critical behavioral facts are front-loaded.

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 single-parameter, no-annotation tool with no output schema, the description explains the operation's safety profile, rate limit, exact selection criteria, and the expected result data (status transition, Merkle Root, TON hash). Nothing an agent needs to decide whether and how to invoke it is missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the schema already documents deal_id as a canonical 36-character UUID. The description adds that it must represent the cryptographic deal, but this is marginal beyond the schema's own description, so the high-coverage baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses specific verbs ('Fetches', 'check', 'retrieve') tied to a distinct resource (public ledger state / proof status) and names the exact data returned (Merkle Root, TON transaction hash). It additionally distinguishes itself from verify_content, which prevents confusion among the listed siblings.

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 'WHEN TO USE' section gives concrete trigger conditions (transition from 'queued' to 'anchored_onchain', need for Merkle Root or TON hash), and the 'WHEN NOT TO USE' section explicitly redirects to verify_content for payload integrity. This is explicit guidance with an alternative.

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