Memory Inclusion Receipt

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description adds value by specifying the return fields (leaf index, audit path, tree size, signed root) and the dependency on the memory id from 'recall'. No contradictions.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence states the main purpose and standard, the second lists return fields and usage context. Efficient and front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description does not need to explain return values. Input schema is fully described, and the purpose and usage are fully covered. No gaps.

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 description coverage is 100% with a clear description of 'memory_id'. The description adds context that the id comes from a recall result's 'id' field, which helps the agent understand the required input.

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 produces an RFC 6962-style cryptographic proof of inclusion for a specific memory, with a specific verb ('produce') and resource (memory in signed log). It distinguishes from siblings like 'recall' and 'verify' by focusing on third-party proof.

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 explicitly says to use to prove to a third party that a memory existed and was logged, and it requires the memory's id from 'recall'. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or directly compare to sibling 'verify', but the use case is clear.

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