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

The description adds valuable side-effect and pipeline details beyond the annotations: the server streams and discards provider runtime code, persists only a compact proof, and returns independent comparison evidence. These details are consistent with destructiveHint=true and profit from readOnlyHint being false.

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 compact, front-loaded, and contains no filler. Every sentence carries information: the main action, the key hash distinction, side effects, and the output nature are all included without redundancy.

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 an operation with both idempotent and destructive hints, this is complete enough: it identifies what is supplied, what happens during processing, what is retained, and what is returned. The output schema and annotations cover the remaining mechanical details.

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 description adds meaningful semantics for expected_authorized_authorized_code_hash and warns against confusing it with the active code hash. However, schema description coverage is only about 33% and parameters such as network, idempotency_key, request_id, and extrinsic identity/differentiation are not semantically explained.

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 names a concrete verb ('Verify') and a specific resource: one reviewed Substrate System.apply_authorized_upgrade extrinsic through the authenticated account lane. This clearly separates it from the unrelated capability-listing and route-execution sibling tools.

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?

It gives practical context for when to call the tool: on a reviewed extrinsic through the authenticated lane. It also provides a key execution rule — supply the expected authorized-code payload hash, not the active :code hash — which prevents a common misuse, even though it does not name alternate tools explicitly.

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