Check the Bitcoin anchoring proof

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

No annotations exist, so description bears full burden. It hints at read-only check ('check whether') but also mentions optional file save, which is a side effect. Does not disclose error behavior, return format, or authorization needs.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with key action. No wasted words. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., separate usage note) but effective.

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?

Simple tool with 2 parameters and no output schema. Description covers core function but omits return behavior (expected boolean or object). Adequate but could explicitly state outcome when proof exists vs. not.

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% with clear descriptions for both parameters (hash as SHA-256 fingerprint, save_to as local file path). Description adds no new meaning beyond schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool checks for an OpenTimestamps proof for a fingerprint, using specific verb 'check' and resource 'fingerprint...proof'. It distinguishes from siblings like verify_certificate and verify_file which perform different verification tasks.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., attest_file, verify_certificate). No when-not-to-use or prerequisite information provided.

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