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

Goes beyond the annotations with three real facts: queued runs are deduplicated against identical inputs (elaborating idempotentHint), a verified session is required, and solver-supplied test outcomes are rejected – an integrity guarantee an agent could not derive from structured fields. It does not describe what happens to the queued run afterward or its lifecycle, so it falls short of full disclosure.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the dedup behavior and the auth/integrity constraints. No filler, every sentence carries distinct 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?

The auth requirement and dedup behavior are usefully covered, but for a tool with an undocumented nested plan object, 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description should explain what plan contains and roughly what the returned run looks like. The gap around plan is the main shortfall.

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% and the plan parameter is an undescribed nested object. The phrase 'queue checks on exact durably stored files' hints that artifact_id points at a stored artifact, but nothing explains the shape or purpose of plan, so the description does not compensate for the coverage 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?

States a specific verb+resource: queue checks on durably stored files, and adds a distinguishing behavior (returns an existing run for identical inputs) that separates it from find_verification_checks and get_verification_run. It never explicitly says the checks are verification checks on a stored artifact, so the connection to artifact_id is left implicit.

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?

States a prerequisite (verified website or wallet session) and a constraint (no solver-supplied test outcomes), which gives context for when the call will succeed. But it names no alternatives and does not say when to use this versus validate_verification_plan or find_verification_checks, leaving sibling selection to inference.

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