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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds material context: inputs are processed transiently and not stored, logged or retained; synthetic or anonymised inputs should be used; an AP2 artifact with execution_hash is exported for provenance; and upstream artifacts from a named tool are consumed. These are real behavioral facts the annotations do not cover.

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 wall of boilerplate that mixes relevant operative facts (transient processing, upstream chaining) with low-value operational trivia (a marketing URL, an FV-status snapshot disclaimer). Front-loading is present but dominated by meta-commentary; several sentences do not earn their place for an agent deciding whether and how to call the 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the four parameters are fully documented in the schema. However, for a 4-parameter compliance compute node with a nested policy_parameters object, the description never explains what the verification decision is, what a positive/negative result means, or how policy_parameters influence the outcome — leaving a substantive gap.

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 compute, parent_hashes, parent_tool_ids and policy_parameters. The description's compute-mode sentence restates the schema field rather than extending it, and it explicitly defers policy_parameters field names to an external manifest, adding nothing beyond structured data. Baseline 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 largely restates the title ('Luxury Goods Product Authenticity Verifier') and then piles on infrastructure metadata ('OpenChainGraph compute node (compliance_mandate)') rather than explaining what the authenticity verification actually does. The only functional detail is that it consumes upstream artifacts from art-116-product-lineage-builder, which hints at a lineage-based check but never states the decision being made. An agent cannot distinguish this from assess_suspect_product_status or resolve_recall_trace on the basis of the description.

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 compute-mode guidance ('auto' vs 'browser' vs 'server') is parameter selection advice, not tool-selection advice, and it duplicates the schema. There is no statement of when to reach for this verifier versus the many adjacent product/lineage/compliance tools in the sibling list, and no prerequisites or preconditions are given.

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