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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it discloses that the tool is free, that it pulls from the signed-record registry, which checks run (signature, issuer trust, revocation/status, expiry), and an important limitation ('a valid signed claim alone does not prove physical authenticity'). It omits failure modes and response shape.

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?

Front-loaded with the cost signal ('Free.') then the core action and the checks; each sentence contributes. Slightly dense with registry/edge-router jargon, but no wasted text.

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?

For a verification tool with no output schema, the description does not say what the caller receives back (a boolean, a verdict object, the signed decision itself). The checks and caveat are covered, but the return contract is entirely 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, but the description adds semantic value the schema lacks: expectedObjectId binds an independently scanned identifier to the signed subject, which clarifies why you would supply it rather than just what it is.

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 uses a specific verb chain (fetch the published JWS, pass it to the verifier) and enumerates what is checked, so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like verify or verify_record, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

It gives conditional guidance for expectedObjectId ('Supply expectedObjectId to bind the record to a scanned object identifier') and a caveat about authenticity, but never says when to reach for this tool versus verify, verify_record, or query_provenance. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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