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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses return fields (reviewer domain, date, offering, verdict, validity, evidence tier) and the meaning of 'evidence-verified', plus notes it is free. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior or failure modes, but for a verification tool the information provided is substantial.

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 a few sentences long, front-loaded with the verb, and each sentence adds value. The evidence-tier explanation and trust-chain example are useful but slightly verbose. Still, it remains appropriately concise for a tool with this complexity.

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 description lists the return fields, compensating for the absent output schema details. It also gives clear usage context and notes the lack of cost. It does not mention edge cases like both parameters provided or error handling, but for a read-only verification tool the essential context is covered.

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 have descriptive comments in the schema. The description adds no new parameter-level detail beyond the schema, though it reinforces the OR relationship through context. This matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 opens with 'Verify a Taste content certificate on-chain' which clearly states the specific verb and resource. It differentiates from siblings like verify_external_source by focusing on Taste certificates and the human-review evidence chain, making the tool's niche explicit.

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?

'Call when consuming content from another source that claims to be human-reviewed' provides a clear when-to-use scenario. The trust chain example further illustrates the intended workflow. However, it does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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