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

Beyond the annotations' safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), it discloses that the route relays the upstream API and returns ENYAL's answer unchanged, that `degraded:true` is inconclusive rather than an absence, and that the caller still needs an eyl_ bearer token even though the upstream route is keyless. These are exactly the behavioral traits annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then the return shape, then the degraded caveat, then auth and validation. Dense and every sentence carries information, though the single run-on paragraph is heavier than it needs to be.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return contract itself (found, anchor_status with bsv_tx_id, chain_status, degraded) and explains the auth and invalid-input behavior. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 already 100% (the identifier param documents UUID/hex, 8-64 chars), so the baseline is 3. The description adds validation semantics the schema does not state: a non-UUID/non-hex id is refused with `invalid_id` and nothing is transmitted.

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 and resource ('look up one identifier in ENYAL's PUBLIC verification index') and pins the scope with 'no decryption'. This clearly separates it from the sibling retrieval tools (get_entity, query_memory, get_node_content), which fetch rather than verify.

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 description establishes clear context: this is a public verification lookup, not a content/decryption call, and it covers the failure path ('invalid_id ... nothing is sent'). It does not explicitly name an alternative sibling or state a when-not condition, so it stops short of a 5.

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