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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value by disclosing that this is a public lookup requiring no workspace connection and transmitting no credential upstream — an auth-behavior detail not present in the structured fields.

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 with no filler; the core action is front-loaded and the access constraint follows immediately. Every clause carries information an agent can act on.

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 auth-free nature and the input are covered, and annotations handle the safety profile. But no output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of explaining what verification returns (valid/invalid, signature details, error on unknown hash) and it does not — leaving a meaningful gap for an agent that must interpret the result.

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 fully documented as the SHA-1 signature hash of the signed document. The description only reinforces this ("its actual Assinafy SHA-1 signature hash") without adding format, source, or validation detail, 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?

The description states a specific verb (verify) and resource (signed document) plus the mechanism (its Assinafy SHA-1 signature hash), which clearly separates it from retrieval-oriented siblings like get_document and show_document. It does not explicitly contrast itself with a sibling, but no other tool in the set performs verification, so the purpose is 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?

It gives a usage condition — a public lookup that requires no workspace connection and sends no credential — which tells the agent it can call this without auth setup. However, it never states when to prefer this over other document-inspection tools or what precondition (having the signature hash) selects it, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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