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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, which is notable for a 'verify' verb and hints the call may consume or mark the proof. The description adds nothing about side effects, whether the proof is single-use, or auth requirements — it only restates the verb and route. With annotations carrying the safety profile, the description still contributes almost no behavioural 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?

One short sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and the HTTP route appended as a compact locator. No filler or redundancy.

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 verification endpoint with no output schema, the description says nothing about what a result means, how an invalid proof is reported, or whether verification consumes the proof — the most important questions for a non-idempotent, non-read-only verify call. Against a very dense sibling namespace, this leaves real gaps.

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?

There is a single opaque 'body' parameter and the schema description coverage is 100%, so the structured data nominally covers the parameter. The description adds nothing about what the body must contain (proof encoding, delegated authority fields), which is 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 a specific resource ('Verify a delegated-authority proof') plus the backing route, which differentiates it from the many other verify siblings (agent_trust_verify, circuit_verify, merkle_verify_proof) by resource. It stops short of naming the issuance counterpart affix_delegate_issue or any sibling explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus affix_delegate_issue, affix_proof_ref_verify, or affix_verify, and no stated prerequisites (e.g. needing a proof produced by affix_delegate_issue). Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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