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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about permissions, whether this is a pure read, what happens when the sizes are inconsistent or exceed the current tree, or how the proof is returned. Only the implicit read-only nature of 'proof retrieval' is conveyed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is well matched to a two-parameter proof tool. It reads as a fragment rather than a full statement of action, leaving no room for the guidance the tool actually 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 annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage on both parameters, the description is the only documentation channel and it explains neither the returned proof structure nor error behavior. That is not enough for an agent to call this confidently without outside RFC 6962 knowledge.

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 0%, so the schema only shows two unbounded integers with minimum 1. The description supplies real meaning by identifying both as log sizes and framing `first` as the prefix and `second` as the larger log, but it still omits that first must be <= second and whether `second` is capped at the current tree size.

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 names the specific artifact (an RFC 6962 proof) and defines the exact relation it attests, which is far more than a restatement of the name. It never explicitly contrasts with the sibling get_inclusion_proof, so an agent must know RFC 6962 terminology to distinguish the two.

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?

There is no statement of when to request a consistency proof versus an inclusion proof or get_log_state, and no mention of preconditions such as requiring first <= second. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name.

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