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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it states that no credentials are required and that the operation checks hash validity and chain links, implying a read-only verification with a returned status. It does not explicitly state that the operation is non-destructive or describe the exact response shape, leaving some minor behavioral details unstated.

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 compact sentences front-load the core operation and then add the key differentiator of no authentication. Every sentence contributes relevant information with no waste.

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 simple one-parameter public verification tool without an output schema, the description covers what is checked and that verification status is returned. It could briefly clarify how this differs from the authenticated proof_verify sibling, but it is otherwise complete enough for correct invocation.

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 single parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds only that the DPU is being publicly verified, which is consistent but largely redundant with the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource — publicly verifies a DPU's cryptographic integrity — and lists the concrete checks performed (SHA-256 validity and chain link integrity). The word "publicly" distinguishes it from authenticated sibling tools such as proof_verify.

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 clearly establishes the usage context: public verification requiring no credentials, implying it should be used when authentication is unavailable or undesirable. It does not explicitly name proof_verify as the alternative for authenticated verification, but the public/no-auth framing provides a strong selection signal.

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