Get Audit Proof

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context about the return value (tamper-evidence, hash chaining, chain integrity, public key), which is valuable beyond the annotations. No contradictions found.

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 a single, dense sentence that conveys all essential information without wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 simple, one-parameter read-only tool with rich annotations, the description is nearly complete. It states what is returned, including key elements (chain integrity, public key). It doesn't include explicit return formatting, but the absence of an output schema and the low complexity make this acceptable.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema fully describes the single parameter (decisionId) as 'Decision id returned by request_payment'. The description repeats 'decision id' but adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Return') and the specific resource ('tamper-evident, hash-chained proof for a decision id'), while also detailing what the proof includes (chain intactness and verifying public key). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like request_payment or verify_mandate.

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 a use case (obtaining proof for a decision ID from request_payment) but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like explain_decision or verify_mandate. The context is sufficient for simple use but lacks when-not-to-use or alternative comparisons.

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