Query registration status

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), so the bar is lower; the description still adds single-shot semantics and the pending/retryAfterMs response branch. It doesn't discuss auth requirements or error cases, keeping it short of 5.

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 endpoint and return shape are front-loaded in the first two sentences, and the no-polling rule is stated early. The trailing 'Provenance: fetched. Supports: none of the four questions' is meta-noise that doesn't earn its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be re-explained, and the description still summarizes the two response branches plus the non-polling contract. Nothing critical for invocation is missing, though auth and failure behavior are unaddressed.

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 all four parameters, including contentHash as the hex sha256 of signed statement bytes, are already documented. The description restates contentHash without adding syntax or format detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline for fully-covered schemas.

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?

States a specific verb, resource and endpoint shape (GET /logs/{bootstrapLogId}/{logId}/entries/{contentHash}) and what comes back: pending with retryAfterMs, or the receipt's URL and entry id. An agent can distinguish this from fetch_receipt, which retrieves the receipt itself rather than its locator.

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?

'Never polls: call again yourself if you want to' gives concrete retry guidance, and the return of a receipt URL (rather than the receipt) implicitly routes retrieval to a sibling. There is no explicit when-not or named alternative, so it falls short of a 5.

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