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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists verification targets but does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it can have side effects, what happens on failed verification, or if special permissions are needed. 'Verify' implies a non-mutating check, but that is not explicit.

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?

One concise sentence front-loaded with the verb 'Verify' and listing all verification dimensions. No filler, redundant detail, or repetition of schema information.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description should explain what the verification result looks like (e.g., boolean, status object, error behavior). It also lacks usage guidance and parameter explanation, leaving an agent without enough information to invoke or interpret the tool 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?

The schema provides no description for card_id (0% coverage), and the description never explicitly explains what card_id refers to or how it should be formatted. The phrase 'card identity' hints at it, but the connection is not made clear.

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 states a specific verb ('Verify') and a resource ('card identity, immutable artifacts, Ed25519 signature and signed_sealed status'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_card. The phrase 'native v0.2 evidence' adds jargon that may obscure clarity slightly, but the core purpose is clear.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as read_card, seal_attempt, or challenge_action. There is no mention of prerequisites, preconditions, or example use cases.

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