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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description reinforces 'Read-only' but adds nothing beyond that about rate limits, return format, or auth needs. Credit is limited since annotations carry the behavioral burden and the description doesn't extend it.

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?

One compact sentence plus a scoping note; front-loaded with the key detail (the five statements and product categories returned). Minor redundancy in restating 'the five statements' twice, but otherwise efficient.

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 simple read-only 1-param tool with rich annotations, the description covers the return shape and scope well. No output schema exists, so describing the returned content in the description is valuable and largely done.

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% and the single optional 'business' parameter is fully documented. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (show/attest) and resource (verification declaration statements), and enumerates the content returned. Distinguishes itself from siblings like agenta_verify_status or agenta_verify_submit by naming the declaration statements, though it doesn't explicitly reference those siblings.

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 read-only framing implies when to call it (to view, not modify), and the context (submitting business verification) hints at usage. But there are no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use statements or references to alternative siblings for related tasks.

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