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

The annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behaviorable. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: it returns signature validity, document integrity, issuer-key validity, proof integrity, and warnings, and it states that cryptographic validity does not imply trustworthiness. It also clarifies the tool will not fetch URLs, which goes beyond annotation metadata.

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?

Three sentences, with the action and object front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place: the verification context, the returned validity dimensions, the no-fetch guarantee, and a critical trust caveat.

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 cryptographic verification tool with no output schema and a nearly empty input schema, the description is remarkably complete: it covers the verification context, the kinds of integrity checks performed, and the non-fetching behavior. The only notable gap is the absence of a concrete bundle structure or example, which would remove ambiguity for the caller.

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 0% and the single 'bundle' property has no type or description, so the description must carry the semantic load. It does convey that the bundle should be a signed Trust Passport or proof bundle)Skip; however, it does not specify the bundle's structure, format, required fields, or how 'bounded' should be interpreted.

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 ('Verify') and a specific resource ('bounded signed Trust Passport or proof bundle'), and scopes it to this instance's configured issuer and current public key history. It is clearly distinguishable from the retrieval-oriented sibling get_trust_passport.

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 clear context for when the tool is appropriate: verifying a passport or proof bundle against the instance's issuer and key history. It also explicitly notes that it does not fetch supplied URLs, which helps prevent misuse; however, it does not explicitly name an alternative tool or exclusion condition.

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