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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it explains the verification is a SHA-256 recomputation over 'locked fields' and that the response bundles the signal, its publisher and current performance, which tells the agent this is a heavier read than a plain fetch.

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 tight sentences: the action and its input come first, the mechanism and returned payload second. Nothing is duplicated or padding, and the example is inline rather than in a separate block.

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 no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what comes back (verification verdict, the signal, publisher, current performance), which covers the return-value burden. It omits edge behavior for an unknown or malformed code and any rate-limit/auth notes, which is a minor gap for a single-parameter read tool.

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% and the schema already specifies the format, length bounds and case-sensitivity (maxLength 40, minLength 3, example 'AB-x7k2m9'). The description repeats the same example without adding new semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (verify) and resource (signal), names the key input (attestation code) with an example, and explains the underlying mechanism (SHA-256 recomputation over locked fields). No sibling tool competes for this purpose, so an agent can select it unambiguously.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers you call this when you have received a signal code and want to confirm integrity. There is no explicit when-to-use trigger, no mention of what to do on failure, and no routing away from alternatives such as list_my_signals or get_publisher_track_record.

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