Seal content

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits: it writes to an immutable ledger, uses SHA-256, Ed25519, and LMS-W4-SHA256 signatures. Since no annotations are provided, this context is essential for the agent to understand that this is a write operation with permanent effects. However, it does not mention output format or failure modes, which keeps it from a 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. It efficiently describes the tool without redundancy.

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?

The tool is a write operation with no output schema, but the description does not explain what the API returns (e.g., a receipt ID or hash). This is a gap for agent invocation. The description covers the core behavior but is incomplete regarding expected outcomes.

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?

The input schema provides descriptions for all four parameters, so with 100% schema coverage the description adds no additional parameter-level meaning. The baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the full burden.

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 uses a specific verb 'Stamp' and specifies the resource 'content', and it clearly differentiates from sibling tools (audit, verify, anchor, cite) by describing the cryptographic receipt and immutable ledger write. This is a specific action with clear scope.

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?

The description implies the use case (creating a cryptographic receipt) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like verify or anchor. There is no mention of exclusions or when not to use it, so the usage is implied rather than explicit.

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