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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a real state machine: proofs are pending until a daily root covers them, then included proofs carry the path to the audit root. It does not cover failure behavior (unknown seq, malformed seq, permanently pending), nor that this is a read-only, non-mutating operation.

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 operative behavior (read a proof, pending vs included) is front-loaded, and the semicolon-separated clauses are efficient. The trailing prompt-injection warning is longer than the tool description it follows, but it is actionable and non-redundant.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the key return semantics: pending versus included and what path an included proof carries. The main missing piece is error handling for an out-of-range or uncovered seq.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the single 'seq' parameter, and it only implies that seq picks 'one of my vault entries.' It adds no format hint (zero-padded decimal string) and no meaning for what a sequence number indexes beyond that hint.

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 definition opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read the inclusion proof for one of my vault entries,' which an agent can distinguish from the sibling vault_head. It stops short of naming an alternative tool, but the verb+object is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent must infer this is used to verify that a vault entry is committed in the published audit root. There is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, no mention of when to prefer vault_head or memory_get instead, and no prerequisites section.

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