verify_timestamp

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false. Description adds value by disclosing the external API dependency (Esplora), the specific proof constraint (hash existed before a block height), and important limitations (not affirming authorship or validity). This provides behavioral context beyond annotations.

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?

Two sentences, no redundancy. Core action is front-loaded, and each sentence adds distinct value: the first explains the mechanism, the second clarifies limitations. Ideal conciseness.

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 simple tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers purpose, method, and constraints. It could mention the return type or expected response (e.g., success/failure or proof details), but the description is sufficiently complete for an AI to decide whether to invoke it.

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% (the 'id' parameter is described as 'UUID from the stamp record'). The description does not add further parameter-level details. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents the parameter adequately.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Verifies' and clearly identifies the resource ('timestamp proof against the Bitcoin blockchain via an Esplora API'). It distinguishes from siblings by stating what it does not affirm (authorship, content truth, legal validity), making its scope 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?

Implicitly states usage: for cryptographic proof of existence at a point in time. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools mentioned, but the sibling list provides context. Could be improved by directly comparing with related tools like 'inspect_timestamp' or 'stamp_file'.

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