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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that the comparison is field-by-field against a canonical record; it says nothing about mismatch handling, missing-record behavior, or what happens when the candidate is not on the expected network.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste: the verification action and its candidate inputs come first, and the 'symbol alone is insufficient' caveat follows as a tight warning.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing returns; 'field-by-field result' is directionally helpful but does not enumerate which fields are returned or what a negative verification looks like. Adequate, but a gap for a tool whose entire value is its comparison output.

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 description coverage is 100% and each of the three parameters is documented with its role and requiredness, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description restates the triple (network, issuer, currency code) without adding format guidance, e.g. the 160-bit hex form the schema mentions.

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 (compares/verifies) and resource (candidate network/issuer/currency against the canonical ASTEROID identity) and notes the return shape ('field-by-field result'). It does not, however, contrast itself with the nearby sibling get_asset_identity, so an agent must infer the split between reading an identity and verifying one.

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 implied rather than stated: the caution that 'the display symbol ASTEROID alone is never sufficient verification' hints at when this tool is needed, but no alternative (e.g. get_asset_identity or discover_asset) is named and no when-not condition is given.

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