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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context about the hash chain check and full recomputation, but does not disclose what the response looks like or any potential failure modes.

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?

The description is two short, impactful sentences. It front-loads the action and uses a memorable phrase ('trust nothing, recheck everything') without wasted words.

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?

The tool has four parameters and no output schema, yet the description covers the core operational modes well. However, it omits any mention of return values, error conditions, or prerequisites for full mode (e.g., data matching the original), leaving some gaps for an agent to infer.

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?

The schema provides complete descriptions for all four parameters, including the optional nature of 'data' for integrity mode and 'derivation_rules'. The description reinforces the role of 'data' in full mode but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema.

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 re-verifies a validation certificate, and distinguishes two operating modes (integrity and full). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like verify_replay or validate, which would make it a 5.

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 explains when to use each mode (integrity vs full) and implies that full mode requires the original data. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as verify_replay, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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