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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses ordering (ascending), the returned cryptographic fields, that the signed head is included, the pagination mechanism, and the credential requirement plus that the call is free. It stops short of stating rate limits or what happens on a tampered chain, but the behavioral picture is largely complete.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what is exported, then paging, then verification and auth/cost. Every clause carries distinct information and nothing is repeated.

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 no annotations, so the description must cover returns and behavior; it describes the row shape and the included signed head, plus paging, verification, and credential requirements. Only minor gaps remain (rate limits, error behavior on chain mismatch, how the head is consumed).

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%, so the schema already documents limit, api_key, since_seq, and workspace_id, and the baseline is 3. The description only restates since_seq's paging role in prose ("the last chain_seq you got") without adding format or constraint detail beyond the schema's "chain_seq greater than this".

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Export the hash-chained (OK) audit rows") and enumerates the payload (prev_hash/entry_hash plus the signed head), which separates it from plain activity readers. It never names the adjacent siblings (aanet_get_activity, aanet_get_activity_head, aanet_get_activity_summary) that an agent must choose between, so differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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?

It gives concrete operational guidance: page forward using since_seq = the last chain_seq received, verify with the verify_chain function in AGENTS.md, and notes the auth/cost profile ("Owner_key required; free"). What's missing is an explicit when-not or a pointer to the lighter activity tools for non-verification reads.

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