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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the key's algorithm and offline verification purpose, but does not disclose return format, key rotation behavior, or any auth requirements.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It states the action and the artifact without unnecessary detail.

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 simple key-retrieval tool, the description states the returned artifact and its purpose, but with no output schema it omits the key's encoding/format and gives no guidance on valid query parameters. It is adequate but leaves gaps an agent may need to fill.

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 has its own description ('Optional query parameters.'), so the schema carries the burden. The tool description adds no parameter meaning beyond that baseline.

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 ('Get') and resource ('public key used to verify ML-DSA-65 attestations'), and the resource is unique among siblings (a key retrieval, not a verification or audit operation). An agent can distinguish it from affix_verify and other affix tools without opening the 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 phrase 'for offline verification' gives a clear intended use case, telling the agent when this key is needed. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g. online verification tools) or state when not to use it.

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