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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: verification can update a bounded in-memory lifecycle index (explaining readOnlyHint=false and non-idempotency), drift checks require a Bitcoin block provider, and execution is gated on confirmed Lightning settlement plus an invoice-bound payment proof. The 'invoice creation alone is not payment' line is a real anti-misuse clarification.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, followed by sibling disambiguation and then the payment protocol. Dense and mostly earned, though the L402 paragraph is long enough to slightly dilute the core verification message for agents that will never encounter a 402.

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 multi-branch, non-read-only, open-world tool, the description covers when to use it, side effects, external dependency (block provider), auth/payment flow, and failure semantics. Output schema exists so return values need not be explained; only the exact shape/nature of the 'lifecycle index' mutation stays vague.

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 the schema itself documents the three oneOf branches (legacy telemetry Groth16, zk.drift.v1, OTS) with field-level descriptions and examples. The description only restates the branch selection already expressed by `proofType`, so it adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema; 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 (verify) and the exact resource set: Groth16 telemetry proofs, zk.drift.v1 SNARKs, and OpenTimestamps receipts. It also names the two siblings it is not (proof.submit for registration, proof.get_by_hash for retrieval), so an agent can route correctly without opening 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?

Explicitly says 'Use this tool to verify supplied proofs' and gives the alternative for each adjacent case (registering with proof.submit, retrieving with proof.get_by_hash). The payment section also states the exact call sequence: handle 402, pay, retry the identical request with Authorization: L402 <macaroon>:<preimage>.

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