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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=true, but the description goes beyond that by disclosing 'No auth needed' and the optional saved row/hash witness starting mode. It does not overclaim or contradict the annotation, and 'changes nothing' reinforces the read-only contract.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and object, then safety/access notes. No filler or duplication of the schema.

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 read-only tool with zero required parameters, the core contract is covered, and the output schema absence means return values are not promised. But the description leaves unresolved ambiguity around 'identity and treasury' vs 'ledger' terminology, the meaning of saved witnesses, and how this relates to the large attestation/witness sibling cluster, so an agent is not fully equipped.

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 only 60%, leaving ledger_from and identity_from entirely undocumented. The description mentions 'saved row/hash witnesses' but does not clarify which parameters are row vs ledger vs identity, what a 'witness' is, or how the expect values are formatted. It therefore adds little parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific action and object: 'Verify the identity and treasury linear hash chains', and adds the optional saved-witness starting point. It clearly states what the tool does, but it does not name or contrast any of the sibling attestation/witness tools, so an agent has to infer the boundary.

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?

'No auth needed' and 'READ-ONLY ... can be repeated safely' provide explicit call-context guidance, and 'optionally from saved row/hash witnesses' signals when the starting-point parameters matter. However, the description never says when to choose this over siblings such as attestation, issue_attestation, or witnesses, so the when-vs-alternatives guidance is only implied.

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