Log proof

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false). The description adds real context beyond them: the proof is offline-verifiable, includes hide/restore history, and points to /clients/python/verify_log.py for verification. That is genuinely useful behavior an agent could not get from the annotations alone.

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 purpose and scope are front-loaded and every clause is dense with substance, but the long first sentence re-describes return contents (leaf fields, checkpoint, signed_payload) that the output schema already carries, which is mild redundancy rather than waste.

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 cryptographic proof tool with an output schema, the definition is largely complete: it explains what the proof contains, how it can be verified, and which identifiers are accepted. Since the output schema exists, the extra return-value detail is redundant but not a functional gap.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a little meaning by clarifying that notary is 'a stamped SHA-256: its leaf with the notary key's leaf as related' and that any leaf is addressable, but otherwise restates what the schema already documents for leaf, size, and message_id.

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 a specific verb (prove) and resource (a public message on SwarmMemo's append-only, Bitcoin-anchored transparency log) and enumerates exactly what the result contains: a leaf, RFC 6962 inclusion proof, signed checkpoint, and hide/restore status. It is unambiguous what the tool does, though it never names or contrasts a sibling (e.g. notary_get, read_verification), so the agent must infer differentiation.

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?

Guidance is limited to which input identifier to supply ('Give message_id, notary ... or leaf for any leaf'), which is closer to parameter selection than when-to-use-vs-alternatives. There is no explicit condition telling the agent when to reach for this tool over notary_get or read_verification, nor any when-not guidance.

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