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

Annotations already declare a read-only, open-world, non-idempotent lookup, so the bar is lowered; the description still adds real value by disclosing what is returned (signer identity, publisher standing, hash conflict detection) and the five advice verdicts. The conflict case — same name@version signed with another hash meaning possible tampering — is behavior an agent could not infer from annotations alone. It does not explain why the call is non-idempotent (results change as new signatures appear), a minor gap.

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?

Opens with the trigger condition, follows with the input requirement, then the return semantics and the enumeration of advice codes. Every clause carries information; nothing is padded or repeated from the schema.

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 an output schema present the description need not detail return structure, and it still summarizes the key verdicts. For a single-parameter verification tool this is nearly complete, with only the non-idempotent behavior and any failure modes for malformed or unknown hashes left unstated.

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 the baseline is 3; the description earns an extra point by stressing 'the sha256 of the exact file', which tells the agent the hash must be of the precise artifact rather than a package name or a manifest, a distinction the schema's 'sha256 of the artifact' leaves ambiguous.

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 (check who signed) and a specific resource (a release artifact identified by sha256), and the scoping phrase 'skill, MCP server or package' separates it from siblings like check_agent, check_service and get_attestation. Its title and description together let an agent pick it 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?

'Before installing a skill, MCP server or package' gives a clear triggering moment and correctly implies the pre-install verification context. It stops short of naming an alternative or stating when not to use it (e.g., for already-installed or self-built artifacts), so it is clear context without explicit exclusions.

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