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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that verification is offline by default, and that check_anchors=true additionally checks the drand round and Bitcoin anchors (network), indicating a networked operation. It also lists the specific checks performed, giving the agent a clear picture of behavior. However, it does not mention side effects (likely none) or error handling, but for a verification tool this is adequate.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and verification scope, while the second provides concise input and option details. Every word serves a purpose.

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 tool with 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core functionality and parameter usage well. However, it does not describe the return value or format (e.g., success/failure, verification details), which an agent might need to know for downstream handling. This minor gap keeps it from a perfect score.

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?

The schema has 0% parameter description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the purpose of each parameter: 'seal' for the object, 'url' for a croviatrust.com URL, and 'check_anchors' as a boolean to enable additional anchor checks. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema types.

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 crovia.seal.v1 object or a wrapped TACET silence proof offline' and enumerates the verification aspects (signature, canonical bytes, bindings, non-inclusion paths). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_silence_proof (which likely retrieves proofs) and silence_report (which may generate reports) by focusing on offline verification.

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 gives explicit input guidance ('Pass the object as 'seal' or a croviatrust.com URL as 'url'') and explains the optional check_anchors flag. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions (e.g., when not to use it). The usage context is implied but not explicitly contrasted with sibling tools.

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