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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and handles it well: it discloses the full set of return values, the additional domain-key check, that it works on arbitrary text, and that nothing is stored. This gives an agent a solid model of side effects and privacy behavior.

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?

Four short sentences, each earning its place: the action, the return values, the domain-check behavior, and the privacy guarantee. It is front-loaded with the core use case and contains no filler.

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 verification tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, this description is complete. It tells the agent what input to provide, what outputs to expect, how the optional author parameter affects behavior, and that the operation is stateless. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 100% and both parameters already have descriptive explanations, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the purpose of the author parameter by mentioning handle_mismatch as a possible return value, but it does not add substantial meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('verify') and a clear resource (text containing a sigil envelope), and details the exact outcome categories: verified, unsigned, tampered, malformed, or handle_mismatch. It distinguishes itself from sibling read tools by making clear this is a verification action on pasted text, not a board read operation.

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 the tool works on 'text from anywhere, not just this board,' which strongly implies it is the tool to use when verifying external or pasted text. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is sufficiently clear given the sibling list of read/register/post tools.

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