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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without the description's help. The description adds useful context that the evaluation is against a *signed* plan and a verification_token, but says nothing about what happens on mismatch, whether tokens expire, or how the verdict is reported. With annotations carrying the safety burden, this is adequate but thin.

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?

One sentence, zero filler, and the subject (the before/after evaluation) is front-loaded before the dependency clause. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. The main remaining gap is that an agent is not told what snapshots should contain or how failures surface, which matters for a 3-required-parameter tool with 0% schema documentation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It gives each parameter a semantic role: before/after snapshots are the compared outputs, and the verification_token is tied to the signed plan from review_network_change. However, it never specifies the expected format/content of the snapshots or what the token encodes, leaving format details undocumented.

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 (Evaluate) and precise resources (bounded before/after outputs, the signed verification plan) rather than restating the title. It also situates the tool in the workflow by naming review_network_change as the source of the plan, so an agent can distinguish the verifier from the reviewer without opening either schema.

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 provides clear operative context: this tool consumes the plan that review_network_change returns, implying it is used after that call. It does not state when not to use it or name any alternative verifier, so it falls short of explicit exclusions.

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