Attest by DataHubz (verify only)

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, and the description goes well beyond that: it states no authentication is needed, that a file's contents are never transmitted, how private agreements are handled via zero-knowledge proofs, and which output fields are human-typed and therefore untrusted. Those are exactly the behavioral facts an agent needs and none of them are derivable from the annotations.

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 purpose and accepted inputs are front-loaded in the first three sentences, and most of the remaining text carries real information. The closing paragraph on untrustedText and unverified email addresses is somewhat long and partly overlaps what an output schema can convey about field trust, but it is not filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape is covered, yet the description still supplies the semantics the schema cannot express: what status/signer/anchor results mean and how private agreements are reported. For a single-parameter read tool with no siblings, nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 already 100%, so the baseline would be 3. The description earns more by explaining where each identifier comes from (the verification code printed at the foot of every page and on signature stamps, the 64-hex-character SHA-256, the agr_/rcpt_/azk_ prefixes) and how to compute a fingerprint with shasum -a 256 or the browser tool, which the schema does not say.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: checks whether a signed document, agreement, receipt, or Share proof is genuine. The scope is further narrowed by enumerating exactly which identifier types it accepts, so an agent knows precisely what class of query belongs here rather than to some other lookup.

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 concrete usage context: no account required, identical to the public check at attest.datahubz.com/verify, and explicitly enumerates the five acceptable query forms. It also steers the agent away from uploading files by explaining the on-device fingerprint alternative. There is no stated 'when not to use' case, but with no sibling tools the routing risk is minimal.

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