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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral detail beyond these: it explains the cryptographic process (recomputing SHA-256, verifying Ed25519 signature against the house public key) and enumerates the returned attested record. This is meaningful context, though failure behavior for invalid signatures or unknown IDs is not described.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core action, the second explains the verification mechanism and output, the third gives usage guidance. The most critical information is front-loaded with no fluff.

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, idempotent verification tool with a single well-documented parameter and an output schema, the description covers purpose, method, returned fields, and usage context. Nothing essential for an agent to invoke it 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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter stone_id is fully documented with format and examples. The description primarily repeats 'by stone ID' and does not add new parameter-level semantic detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('verify'), a precise resource ('Digital Gemstone Passport by stone ID'), and the method (SHA-256 recomputation, Ed25519 signature check). Clearly differentiates from siblings like get_gem_product or lab_report_check, which do not claim cryptographic authenticity 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?

Provides explicit when-to-use triggers: when a buyer asks if a stone/passport is genuine, or before quoting any fact about a specific stone. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select this tool over similar ones.

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