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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the substantive behavioral detail of what verification actually inspects. It does not describe failure behavior (what a failed verification returns), which is the remaining gap, though an output schema exists to carry return shape.

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 WHEN condition and the sibling contrast are front-loaded and the example is compact. The leading repetition of the tool name 'trust_verify.' is pure waste, but the rest earns its place.

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 two-parameter verification tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description supplies purpose, alternative routing, and an example. Only the failure/result semantics are left implicit, a minor gap given the output schema.

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% for both parameters, including the auth key alternative, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's example adds only marginal shape information about the verdict object, matching the baseline 3 for high-coverage schemas.

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 — validate a presented passport verdict — and enumerates exactly what is checked (digest, math, Dead Brands signature). It explicitly separates itself from trust_check/trust_explain by noting those issue while this verifies, so an agent can distinguish it without reading either 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 WHEN clause names the triggering condition (a verdict has been presented and needs validation) and the alternatives are named with the discriminating rule: 'those issue; this verifies'. A concrete invocation example is included, leaving nothing to inference.

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