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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool verifies integrity via hash-chain receipt, suggesting a read-only operation, but does not disclose what happens on failure, authorization needs, or rate limits. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with the core purpose. It could be slightly restructured for clarity, but every part is relevant and earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the core purpose and input. Missing details about return value or error handling, which for a verification tool might be useful, but overall adequate.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, the description adds context ('Pass the pack id') beyond the schema's type-only definition. However, it lacks format specifics or examples, making it minimally sufficient.

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: verifying a pack's hash-chain receipt to prove the artifact is unaltered since generatedAt. It uses specific verb 'verify' and resource 'pack's hash-chain receipt', and distinguishes from siblings (build_evidence_pack, ground_claim, screen_entity) as a verification tool.

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 implies usage (pass the pack id) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusion criteria or prerequisites. The context is clear but no guidance on when not to use.

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