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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower, and the description adds real substance: what is recomputed, that the signature check is left to the caller ('verify the Ed25519 signature independently'), and where to do it. It stops short of saying whether the tool itself reports a pass/fail on the recomputed hash.

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?

Two tight sentences, zero filler, with the core operation (recompute hash and chain link) front-loaded ahead of the optional comparison and return note.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and only partly does so: it says where to verify the signature externally but not what the tool returns on success or mismatch. For a verification tool whose whole value is the verdict, that gap matters.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including the optional 'text' comparison. The description restates the text parameter's role without adding format or matching semantics, 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?

Specific verb+resource: it states exactly what is recomputed (SHA-256 hash and chain link) and the optional text comparison, which clearly separates it from a plain retrieval tool like get_claim. It does not, however, explicitly name or contrast itself with any sibling.

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 rather than stated: recomputation and the optional 'quoted claim text' comparison signal an integrity/misquoting check, but the description never says when to call this instead of get_claim or list_claims. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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