Export an integrity certificate

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a non-mutating operation, and the description is consistent with that, so there is no contradiction. It adds real context beyond the annotation: the prerequisite of a configured witness, and the specific disclosure semantics (only seqs you name are revealed; everything else remains salted hashes). It does not describe the certificate's return format or size limits, 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?

Three tight sentences: the artifact and its purpose first, disclosure behavior second, prerequisite last. No filler, no restatement of the tool name, and every clause carries information.

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 single-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, the gating prerequisite, and the disclosure/hashing behavior sufficiently to call it correctly. The main remaining gap is the shape of the returned certificate, but without an output schema that omission is a minor shortfall rather than a blocking one.

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?

With one parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry the burden, and it partly does: disclose_seqs reveals specific entries by sequence number, is optional, and non-disclosed entries remain salted hashes. It adds meaningful semantics beyond the raw array-of-integers schema, though it omits the maxItems=100 cap and the positive-integer constraint.

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 concrete verb and resource: build/export a selective-disclosure integrity certificate. It defines the artifact's properties (chain valid, witnessed, anchored) and its key use case (third-party verification without ledger access), which makes the tool's role legible. It stops short of naming how it differs from the sibling mandare_verify, so 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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the tool to reach for when an external party needs verifiable proof without ledger access. The precondition 'Requires a configured witness' is a genuinely useful gating rule, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over mandare_verify or other siblings, nor any when-not guidance.

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