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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: 'trust nothing, recheck everything' and the distinction between integrity-only and full recomputation. It doesn't mention rate limits or failure modes, but the core behavioral traits are disclosed beyond the annotations.

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 sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second explains the two modes with a memorable imperative ('trust nothing, recheck everything'). Every word earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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, idempotent verification tool with 100% schema coverage, the description is nearly complete. It explains the two modes and their data requirements. The only gap is that it doesn't describe the return value or what a successful verification looks like, but since there's no output schema and the tool is a verification action, the absence is minor. The description covers what an agent needs to invoke 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters. The description adds value by explaining the semantic difference between integrity mode (omit data) and full mode (provide data), which maps directly to the 'data' parameter. It also clarifies that certificate comes from a prior validation response. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: independently re-verify a validation certificate. It distinguishes two modes (integrity mode and full mode) with specific behaviors, making it distinct from siblings like verify_replay or validate. The verb 're-verify' plus the resource 'validation certificate' is specific and unambiguous.

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 implies when to use each mode: integrity mode for hash chain checks, full mode for recomputing attested rules from scratch. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the mode distinction provides clear context for choosing between them. It could be improved by stating when to prefer this over verify_replay or validate, but the guidance is adequate.

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