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

With no annotations, the description does useful work: it discloses O(n) sequential cost, whole-chain scope, and first-broken-index reporting on tampering. It omits read-only confirmation, error behavior for a missing domain or empty chain, and any return shape (no output schema exists), leaving meaningful gaps for a diagnostic tool.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by the verification mechanism and failure behavior. No filler or repetition.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description should say more about the result (what is returned when intact vs. broken) and error conditions. It covers the core execution model but leaves the agent without a full contract for a 4-parameter verification 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%, so the schema already documents domain, fromIndex, toIndex, and batchSize; baseline is 3. The description adds no constraint on how fromIndex/toIndex interact with 'entire chain' verification or what batchSize affects, so it does not exceed the schema.

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+resource: verifying a SHA-256 hash chain for a domain, including scope ('entire') and mechanism ('O(n) sequential verification of all DPUs'). It implies a distinction from the sibling proof_verify (full chain vs. presumably individual proof), but never names or explicitly contrasts with any sibling.

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?

Tamper-detection and whole-chain verification imply when to use it, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no mention of proof_verify, proof_public_verify, or proof_get as alternatives for narrower checks. The agent must infer the routing.

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