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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, closed-world operation. The description adds useful domain context by naming RFC 6962 and describing the proof as an audit path, but it does not disclose error conditions, output shape, or edge cases such as `index` exceeding `tree_size`.

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 efficient sentence with no wasted words, and the key concept and parameters 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 read-only two-parameter retrieval tool, the input schema and annotations cover much of the need. However, there is no output schema and the description does not explain the returned proof format or failure behavior, leaving some gaps for an agent invoking the 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 description coverage is 100%, and both parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description restates their relationship in the proof context, adding modest semantic linkage but no additional constraints or format details beyond the schema.

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 resource precisely: an RFC 6962 audit path proving that log entry `index` is in the tree of size `tree_size`. It clearly identifies the operation's output and scope, though it does not explicitly distinguish the tool from the sibling `get_consistency_proof`.

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 description implies the tool is used to obtain inclusion proofs, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison to the closely related `get_consistency_proof` sibling.

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