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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses what is checked (hash consistency) and that a verification status is returned, but says nothing about authentication needs, what happens when the optional data is omitted, or failure/error behavior for an invalid or missing proof.

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 with the core action front-loaded and no filler. Slightly terse given the verification semantics that go unexplained.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description does not characterize the returned verification status (possible values, whether details accompany it), and with a nested object parameter and zero annotations, an agent still lacks enough to predict behavior in edge cases.

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 100% and the schema itself documents proofId and the optional 'data' object for re-verification, so the description need not repeat them. Baseline 3 applies; it adds no meaning beyond the schema for either parameter.

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 (verifies) and resource (a specific proof record) plus the mechanism (hash consistency check, verification status). It does not differentiate from siblings like proof_public_verify or proof_chain_verify, which an agent must infer from names alone.

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 phrase 'a specific proof record' hints this is the by-ID counterpart to chain or public verification, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no named alternative among the six proof_* siblings.

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