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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, it discloses what is actually checked (each signature against the shared payload, ROLA proofs and/or on-ledger chain of custody) and that it reports certificate completeness. It stops short of describing the report shape or failure semantics, but adds real behavioral context the annotation does not cover.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the internals, then the input boundary. No filler and every sentence 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 one-parameter, read-only verification tool with no output schema, the description covers what is verified and that a completeness verdict is returned. It could do slightly more on expected failure reporting, but nothing essential for invocation 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?

Single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents 'certificate' as the full .radixsig.json contents. The description adds no syntax, format, or size guidance beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (verifies) and resource (Radix Seal document-attestation certificate / .radixsig.json contents), and pins the scope to the certificate rather than the document. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling verify_rola_proofs even though it mentions ROLA proofs internally, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the artifact named (.radixsig.json certificate), and the 'receives ONLY the certificate, never the document itself' line draws a useful boundary. However, no when-to-use/when-not guidance and no alternative sibling (e.g., verify_rola_proofs) is named for related verification tasks.

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