Check Artifact (was this hash anchored?)

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it discloses that file paths are hashed locally and never uploaded, that the check is scoped to 'this account', and it explains the tampering signal interpretation. These details go beyond the readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint already provided by annotations.

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 description is remarkably concise: two sentences that cover purpose, usage, and interpretation without redundancy. Every sentence contributes new information. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and does not waste words.

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 has no output schema, so the description must convey return semantics. It implies a result about the checkpoint state and explicitly describes the mismatch/tampering signal, but it does not specify the exact return format or fields. Given the simplicity of the tool and the annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete, though a bit more detail on the output could push it to 5.

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 schema provides only names and types for 'path' and 'sha256' with no descriptions (0% coverage). The description compensates fully by explaining that the two parameters are alternatives ('Give a file path ... or a sha256'), clarifying the hashing behavior for the path, and defining the sha256 format implicitly. This is essential semantic information not present in the schema.

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 clearly states the tool checks whether an artifact was anchored by this account and reports the state of its Bitcoin checkpoint. It uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('artifact'), and the title 'was this hash anchored?' reinforces the purpose. It is easily distinguished from siblings like 'anchor_artifact' which performs the anchoring.

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 explains how to use the tool: provide either a file path (hashed locally, never uploaded) or a sha256. It also provides interpretive guidance for the tampering signal when a hash does not match an expected anchored record. While it does not explicitly name alternative tools, the usage context is clear and practical.

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