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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations. It discloses that the tool is deterministic, read-only, and has no model in the path. It explains the two-layer return structure (integrity with payload hash, Ed25519 signature, Merkle inclusion recomputed live; and claim with attestation details and status). It clarifies the important distinction that integrity never implies the claim is true for your purpose, which is a key behavioral trait.

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?

The description is a single, dense paragraph that front-loads the core purpose and key outcome ('Verify any AstraNL reference without a key'). It packs a lot of information but remains focused and avoids unnecessary fluff. The length is justified by the complexity of the verification process and the need to explain the two layers and limitations.

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?

Given the tool's complexity and the absence of an output schema, the description provides complete context. It explains the return structure (two layers), the meaning of status values, the non-implication of integrity for claim truth, and how to act on a VALID receipt. It also clarifies the deterministic and read-only behavior, which is crucial for an agent deciding how to use the tool.

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% for the single parameter 'ref', and the schema already provides comprehensive examples of reference formats. The description does not add further parameter syntax details, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, but here there is 1 well-documented parameter, so the description's lack of additional parameter info is acceptable and warrants a 4.

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 states a specific verb (verify) and resource (any AstraNL reference) with a notable capability qualifier ('without a key'). It explains the two-layer output structure (integrity and claim), which clearly distinguishes this verification tool from the sibling tools, which appear to concern counterparty checks and records.

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?

The description gives clear context for use: it tells you when to re-verify and how to consume a VALID receipt for a next action. It also clarifies that integrity does not imply the claim is true for your purpose, implying you must apply your own acceptance rules. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool versus the sibling tools.

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