チェーンに刻まれたハッシュと手元のファイルを突き合わせる

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds behavioral context by explaining that the tool checks both calldata and event logs, and that the result includes an explicit statement of what can and cannot be proven. This is valuable beyond the 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and ends with a note about the output's epistemic caveat. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 no output schema, the description gives a reasonable sense of the output by mentioning the proof-limitation note. It does not explicitly clarify that only one of text/file_path/expected_hash should be provided, nor does it describe the return structure in detail, but the core behavior is well covered.

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 already documents all five parameters. The description mentions file/text as input options but does not elaborate on the relationship between file_path, text, and expected_hash, nor does it add format details. It meets the baseline but does not add significant parameter meaning.

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 core action: compute the keccak256 of a local file/text and verify whether that value appears in a given transaction's calldata or event logs. It also specifies the purpose as existence proof and timestamp verification, which distinguishes it from the sibling read/query tools.

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 usage context: it is for verifying that a file's hash is anchored on-chain, useful for existence proofs and timestamp verification. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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