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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the verification process, live checks, attached information (status, as-of date, sources, receipt), and the caveat that it is a dated evidence statement, never a guarantee.

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 relatively concise, packing significant detail into two sentences. It is front-loaded with the primary action and clearly structured, though the first sentence is long and could be broken for readability.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (contradiction engine, multiple statuses, hash-chain receipt), the description covers all essential aspects: inputs, process, outputs, and limitations. No output schema exists, so the description adequately replaces it.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context about the verification process and outputs, but does not provide additional semantic meaning for each parameter beyond what the schema already defines.

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 runs a contradiction-verified, signed verification on one record of a data owner's feed, listing specific statuses and outputs. It distinguishes itself from siblings like verify_subject by focusing on a single record.

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 for verifying a single record and checking against live engines, but does not explicitly provide when to use this tool versus alternatives like verify_subject or verify_receipt.

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