get_full_proof

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a non-mutating read, but the description says nothing about permissions, whether the proof must exist, what happens on a missing hash, or the size/format of the returned proof.

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?

A single short sentence with the key resource front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though almost too terse to earn a top score.

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 low-complexity 2-parameter lookup with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but omits the one thing that would help most: how the 'full proof' relates to the other proof-related siblings and what it returns.

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 both the hash and the algorithm enum/default are fully documented in the schema. The description adds only 'from a given hash', giving no format or interaction details beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (get) and resource (full OTS proof) keyed off a hash, which an agent can distinguish from siblings like load_proof or get_proof_info. However, it never explicitly says how 'full proof' differs from 'proof info', so the sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus load_proof, get_proof_info, or verify_proof, nor any stated prerequisite (e.g., whether the hash must have been stamped first). Usage must be entirely inferred from the tool name.

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