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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds real value by disclosing exactly what is cryptographically re-verified and that incremental verification is possible from a trusted checkpoint. It stops short of saying what a failed audit reports, which matters given there is no output schema.

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 dense sentences with the scope of verification first and the parameter guidance second; no filler and nothing repeated from the schema.

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 single optional-parameter, read-only tool this is nearly complete: purpose, verification targets, and checkpoint semantics are all present. The only gap is the result shape (pass/fail, list of bad receipts), which is unaddressed and there is no output schema to fall back on.

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 0%, so the description carries the whole burden and does: it gives the parameter's format ('<seq>:<hash>'), its valid sources (an earlier ok audit checkpoint or an anchor), and its effect (verify only newer receipts). That is far beyond the bare 'type: string, maxLength: 80' in 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 uses a specific verb ('Re-verify') and names the exact artifacts checked: receipt hash chain, claim digests, and runner signatures. It clearly defines a whole-ledger audit rather than the single-artifact work of siblings like verify_claim or get_digest, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 one concrete usage pattern: pass 'since' a checkpoint from an earlier ok audit or an anchor to verify only newer receipts, which implies the zero-argument case is a full re-audit. It does not state when to choose this over verify_claim or get_status, leaving alternative selection to inference.

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