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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It does usefully reveal an append-style, hash-chained ledger side effect, but it omits the verification behavior the title promises, any return value, and immutability or permission implications.

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 single sentence is tight, front-loaded with the main action, and contains no filler. It earns a high conciseness score even though other dimensions suffer from incompleteness.

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?

With five required parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and a title suggesting two behaviors (record or verify), a one-sentence description is insufficient. The agent is left guessing about verification semantics, expected outputs, and which parameter combinations trigger which behavior.

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 reported at 100%, so the structured schema already carries the parameter meanings and the baseline is 3. The description adds a useful hint that payload is a proof hash, but it does not explain organization_id, subject_type, subject_id, or proof_type beyond what the schema likely provides.

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 names a concrete action and object—recording a proof payload hash and appending evidence to a hash-chained ledger—which separates it from siblings like mandate.mint or mandate.delegate. However, the title says 'Record or verify proof' while the description only covers recording, leaving the verification mode undefined and making the overall purpose ambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus siblings such as mandate.discover, mandate.delegate, or broker.use. The description offers no context, exclusions, or alternative routing, so an agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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