get_proof_info

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. It implies a read ('Display') but says nothing about what is returned, whether the proof must be loaded first, or whether any network/validation work happens.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of waste, but for a tool with no annotations and no output schema it is arguably under-sized rather than appropriately concise.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source of behavioral context, and it supplies none. It never says what 'information' comprises or how the result differs from get_full_proof, leaving an agent under-informed.

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% for the single otsData parameter ('OTS proof data (hex string)'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds no further meaning such as expected format constraints or where the hex string comes from, 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?

The description gives a verb ('Display') and a resource ('OTS proof'), so the basic purpose is legible. However, 'information' is undefined and it does not distinguish itself from close siblings like get_full_proof or verify_proof, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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 use this tool versus load_proof, get_full_proof, or verify_proof. The agent must infer from the name alone which of the seven proof-related siblings to pick.

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