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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key trait 'Does not modify state,' plus the exact status values and returned fields. It omits operational context an agent polling for eventual consistency would want, such as expected latency or how to poll a still-'queued' proof.

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?

Front-loaded with the imperative purpose and cleanly segmented into WHEN TO USE and BEHAVIOR blocks, so scanning is easy. The all-caps lead-in and slight overlap between the opening sentence and the BEHAVIOR block cost it a perfect score.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the return values (status, Merkle Root, TON transaction hash, explorer URL), which is exactly what is needed. The only gap is guidance on polling a proof that remains 'queued,' which its own 'POLL' framing implies is a real scenario.

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 coverage is 100% and the single deal_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the description only weakly gestures at it via 'a recently sealed deal.' Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting and the description adds no syntax or format detail.

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 pairs a specific verb with a specific resource: 'Check the lifecycle state of a cryptographic proof on the TON Blockchain.' It is clearly distinct from siblings seal_content (writes) and verify_content (integrity check), so an agent can route correctly without inspecting schemas.

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 explicit 'WHEN TO USE' block gives a concrete triggering condition (verifying a sealed deal moved from 'queued' to 'anchored_onchain') and the data it retrieves. It does not, however, name an alternative tool or state when NOT to call it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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