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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does: it labels the tool read-only, enumerates what the response contains (payload, recomputed hash, stamped hash, anchoring transaction, signing wallet), and flags a critical caveat — 'The guarantee is on-chain, not this response' — with the exact memo format and signature requirements to check independently. It also warns that a decision stamped after the day it governs is a backfill.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and the enumeration of returned fields, then the verification contract. Every sentence is substantive, though the canonical-serialization instruction is dense and could be tightened. Slightly long but 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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain return values and safety on its own — and it does, listing the payload contents, both hashes, the anchoring transaction, and the signing wallet, plus the on-chain guarantee condition. Nothing an agent needs to call and interpret this correctly 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 description coverage is 100% and the single parameter is self-documenting ('UTC date as YYYY-MM-DD. Omit for today.'). The description refers to 'the date' as part of the committed payload but adds no format or defaulting detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource: 'Verify one daily allocation decision against the hash stamped on-chain that day.' That scope cleanly separates it from siblings like verify_day (whole day), verify_claim, and get_decision_history (retrieval rather than verification). An agent can select it without opening any schema.

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 makes the intent clear ('Proves the decision published is the decision stamped, before the vault acted on it') and even prescribes the manual verification procedure. However, it never names when to prefer this over verify_day or get_decision_history, nor states any preconditions or exclusions. Usage is strongly implied but not explicitly routed.

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