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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent/destructive annotations by disclosing the pinned-key trust model, why inline keys are INVALID, why DID references outside the pinned set are UNCHECKABLE, and the explicit three-verdict (never two) contract. Also flags 'never a certification' and that URLs are fetched (consistent with openWorldHint).

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the action and rule come first, then the key-pinning rationale, verdicts, and accepted inputs. A few clauses are long, but each carries decision-relevant information rather than filler.

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?

Output schema exists, so return details need not be restated, and the description still explains what pinned_key in the result means and what the verdicts imply. Complete for a single-parameter verification tool with a nuanced trust model.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema coverage, and the description reinforces it by naming the three accepted forms (object, JSON string, councilof.ai/csoai.org URL). The URL-fetch behavior adds practical meaning beyond the schema's anyOf.

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 (a signed gspc.measurement-card) and describes exactly what it recomputes and checks. It is clearly distinct from siblings like verify_capsule and verify_inclusion.

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?

Explains the verification rule, the accepted input forms, and the three-verdict semantics, which gives strong context for when the tool applies. It does not explicitly route the agent away from sibling verifiers (verify_capsule, verify_inclusion), so sibling selection is left to inference.

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