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

The description discloses that verification is against the 'current production secret', which is a meaningful behavioral detail beyond the schema. It also states the return is a boolean-like validity check ('Returns whether the signature is valid'). It does not detail error behavior or what happens if inputs are malformed, but the core behavior is transparent. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, and it does so well.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: what the tool does, how to call it, and what it returns. It is front-loaded with the purpose and immediately gives the critical usage instruction. No wasted words.

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 4 required parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains the input provenance (from qm_attest), the verification basis (current production secret), and the return type (validity boolean). It could mention error cases or the exact boolean format, but the core context is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds the crucial instruction that all four parameters must be passed back exactly as returned by qm_attest, which reinforces the semantics. However, it doesn't add new meaning beyond the schema's per-parameter descriptions; the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: verify a token minted by qm_attest. It names the specific verb (verify), the resource (token minted by qm_attest), and the expected inputs. It distinguishes itself from siblings by referencing qm_attest, the only sibling that mints tokens.

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 explicitly instructs the agent to pass back the four fields exactly as returned by qm_attest, which is a clear usage guideline. It also states the tool is free and anonymous, implying no authentication or cost barrier. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling context makes qm_attest the only relevant counterpart, and the instruction to use qm_attest's output is explicit.

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