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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds nothing beyond restating purpose – no note that it's non-idempotent, no mention of permissions, failure modes, or that verifying a proof is a state-touching operation despite sounding like a read. No added behavioral context.

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?

Single concise sentence with the endpoint path included. Efficient, though perhaps under-specified for the complexity of the operation.

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?

A proof-verification tool with no output schema, no annotations explaining the non-idempotent, non-readOnly profile, and only a pointer to external OpenAPI schema for the request body. An agent lacks enough context to know what a successful verification returns or what the body needs beyond 'see the OpenAPI 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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are documented in the schema. The description only names circuitId via the URL path, adding nothing about the request body's proof/witness fields beyond pointing to the OpenAPI schema. 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?

States a specific verb ('Verify') and resource ('zero-knowledge proof for a circuit'). Clear purpose, though it doesn't differentiate from siblings like affix_aggregate_verify, affix_proof_ref_verify, or affix_merkle_verify_proof, which are all verification tools.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling verification tools (aggregate_verify, proof_ref_verify, merkle_verify_proof, circuit_prove), an agent must infer selection criteria on its own.

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