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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds beyond that by explaining that the operation is a public-key verification and that it proves provenance and integrity, which is useful behavioral context and does not contradict the annotations.

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 brief, front-loaded sentences: the first states the action, the second defines the parameter and adds the key operational fact. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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-parameter, read-only verification tool with an output schema, the description gives enough to call it correctly: what to pass, what it checks, and what the result proves. No hidden side effects, prerequisites, or additional inputs are implied.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by saying `report` is the report's JSON, clarifying the format beyond 'string', but it does not describe the JSON structure or required fields, so it only partially compensates for the schema gap.

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 clear verb ('Check whether') and a specific resource ('a signed Uttera report'), and defines the success criteria ('genuine and unmodified'). This distinguishes it clearly from the audio-related sibling tools, none of which perform verification.

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 phrasing 'Check whether...' makes the intended use obvious, and the public-key explanation clarifies what the verification proves. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling tool overlaps with this verification function, so the context is sufficient.

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