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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and non-idempotent; the description adds real value beyond these by disclosing the privacy behavior (content never leaves) and that a receipt code plus link is returned per digest. It does not explain the api_key/auth requirement or repeat-submission behavior, but with annotations covering the safety profile this is solid.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and privacy constraint, with no filler. Every sentence carries information the agent needs.

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?

With no output schema, the description covers the return value (receipt code and link for each digest), which is the key gap. It is complete for the core call, but the auth parameter and idempotency behavior remain unexplained for a write/networked tool.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate. It explains the digests array well (one or more 64-character SHA-256 fingerprints), but adds nothing about the optional label (only in schema) and leaves api_key undocumented in both places.

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?

States a specific verb (timestamps), resource (SHA-256 fingerprints), and mechanism (Bitcoin through the free notary). An agent can distinguish it from siblings like sebbi_notary_receipt or sebbi_forever_proof without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear operational context: hash the content yourself and send only the 64-character fingerprint, so the raw data never leaves. It does not name alternatives (e.g., sebbi_notary_receipt for retrieval) or state when not to use it, so it stops short of explicit routing.

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