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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior, so the description adds useful detail beyond the safety profile by explaining the verification steps and that proof_id must reference a PUBLISHED proof. It does not cover failure modes or return behavior, which keeps it from a top score.

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 tight sentences front-load the verification purpose and then give the input guidance. Every clause adds information about what is verified or how to invoke the tool, with 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 read-only verification tool with a nested proof object and no output schema, the description covers the verification operations and accepted inputs well. It could be more complete by saying what a successful or failed verification returns, but the invocation context is adequately 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description reinforces the either/or input model and emphasizes that proof_id must reference a published proof, but adds little semantic detail beyond what the schema 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?

The description uses a specific verb ("Verifies") plus a precise resource ("Lumaion Continuity Proof") and enumerates exactly what is checked: payload hash, Ed25519 signature, runtime delegations, and runtime change. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and easy to distinguish from the index/contract siblings.

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 clearly states the verification context (offline against published proof keys) and explains the two accepted input modes: a full proof object or a published proof_id. It does not name alternatives or explicitly say when not to use it, so it stops short of full usage guidance.

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