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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds substance beyond them: url fetching goes out over the network, check_anchors=true triggers drand round and Bitcoin anchor checks over the network, and a seal-only check stays local to that object. The closing statement that the tool is 'not a closed-world call' directly reinforces and elaborates the openWorld annotation rather than repeating it.

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?

Front-loads what is verified, then handles inputs, then network behavior. Efficient overall, but the network caveat is stated three times ('fetches that URL over the network', 'over the network' for anchors, 'can reach the network'), which is one repetition more than needed.

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?

Inputs and network behavior are fully covered for a zero-required-parameter verification tool. The one gap is that with no output schema, the description never says what a verification call returns (e.g. a pass/fail verdict or per-check results), which an agent would want before calling.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds a cross-parameter constraint the schema cannot express: exactly one of seal or url must be supplied or the call errors, and a seal object alone is verified without network access. It also restates the host restriction and default in terms of consequences.

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 (Check) applied to a specific resource (a crovia.seal.v1 object or wrapped TACET silence proof) and enumerates what is verified: signature, canonical bytes, bindings, and per-epoch non-inclusion paths. That is far more precise than the title, though it does not name any sibling tool to differentiate itself from get_silence_proof or crovia_status.

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?

Gives clear invocation conditions: pass seal (object or string) or url, and explicitly states that with neither the call is an error. It also explains when check_anchors changes behavior. It never compares itself to alternatives, so it stops short of explicit when-not/alternative guidance.

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