get_daily_root

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds that the root summarises entries by `chained_at` and that rebuilding is possible, but does not disclose side effects such as overwriting the stored root or TSA failure behavior — these details only appear in the schema, not the description.

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 two short paragraphs, front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence. It provides concise domain context without repeating parameter schema details.

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 tool with an output schema and well-documented parameters, the description gives sufficient domain background and use-case context. It lacks explicit guidance on when `rebuild=True` is needed or that overwriting occurs, but the schema covers mechanics and the output schema covers returns — acceptable completeness.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds crucial meaning by stating the date is a 'UTC date' and that entries are filtered by `chained_at` falling inside the UTC day — this timezone context is absent from the schema's dry 'YYYY-MM-DD format' description.

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 states 'Get (or rebuild) the daily Merkle root for a UTC date' — a clear verb+resource+scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling verification tools by focusing on obtaining/rebuilding a day-level root, not verifying individual hashes or chains.

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 that verifying this root proves integrity of every TDR for that day 'without re-walking each one,' implying the tool is for whole-day integrity checks. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context separates it from verify_audit_hash/chain.

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