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

The description adds little behavioral context beyond the annotations. While readOnlyHint=true indicates a safe read operation, the description does not explain what 'verify' actually entails—whether it returns a boolean, a detailed report, or what happens if the hash is not found. With no output schema, the agent is left unaware of the response format or potential side effects, despite the operation being read-only.

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 single, focused sentence that front-loads the action (verify) and the resource (signed document). It avoids unnecessary words and clearly states the method (by hash). This is exemplary conciseness for a simple tool.

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 is incomplete for an agent to use correctly because it does not specify the return value or success/failure indicators. Given there is no output schema, the agent cannot anticipate what a successful verification looks like. Additionally, it lacks any usage context or edge-case handling, making it insufficient for a tool that likely needs to interpret results.

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 description merely restates the hash parameter's purpose. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema, such as expected format (e.g., hex string), length, or example values. Since the schema already documents the parameter adequately, a 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: to verify a signed document using its SHA-1 hash. It distinguishes itself from siblings like download_signed_document (which retrieves content) and get_signing_progress (which checks status) by focusing on verification. The verb 'verify' and resource 'signed document' are specific and unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of conditions like 'use when you need to confirm signature validity' or any reference to sibling tools. The agent is left to infer usage from the name and description, which is insufficient for a tool with many similar siblings.

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