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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveness=false, idempotency=false), and the description adds nothing behavioral beyond an HTTP path. It does not say what a successful or failed verification returns, what auth is needed, or whether verification has side effects despite readOnlyHint being false.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the endpoint as a compact parenthetical. Nothing is padded, though the endpoint string is only marginally useful to the agent.

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?

With no output schema, the description should at least characterize the verification result, yet it says nothing about return values, failure modes, or required inputs. The body contract is pushed to an external resource, leaving the agent under-informed for a verify operation.

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 optional 'body' parameter whose schema description defers the entire contract to an external OpenAPI resource. With 100% schema description coverage the baseline is 3, and the description adds no field-level meaning beyond the generic reference-based framing.

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 gives a specific verb ('Verify') plus resource ('a proof by its reference'), and the phrase 'instead of its full payload' implicitly separates it from the payload-based verify siblings like affix_verify or affix_aggregate_verify. It never names those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the routing rule rather than read it.

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?

Usage is only implied: it tells you the precondition (you hold a reference, not a payload) but gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. The contrast clause is the closest thing to guidance present.

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