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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, and the description goes beyond them by disclosing the verification behavior and the response envelope (`untrusted` with `verified`, `manifestStatus`, `reasons`). This is meaningful context for a tool with no output schema, though it doesn't detail failure/error semantics.

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 dense sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then a parenthetical on the return wrap. No wasted words or repetition of schema/annotation content.

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 a single fully documented parameter, read-only annotations, and no output schema, the description provides the essential scope and response shape. The listed return fields compensate for the absent output schema, making the definition complete enough to call correctly.

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?

The schema documents the sole parameter with type, min/max length, example, and .agt suffix optionality at 100% coverage. The description adds nothing beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Fetch and verify'), a specific resource ('only the manifest document for a .agt name'), and the distinguishing 'only' scope. This differentiates it from sibling resolution tools without opening their schemas.

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?

Clearly frames the scope as 'only the manifest document,' which implies the narrow read-only use case and distinguishes it from siblings like agt_resolve by exclusion. However, it doesn't name an alternative explicitly or state when not to use it, so it stays at clear-context rather than full routing guidance.

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