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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds meaningful operational behavior beyond that: independent Ed25519 signature verification against the DID public key, the fee of 1.0 HBAR, and the returned fields. This helps the agent understand what the tool actually does at runtime.

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 short sentences each serve a distinct purpose: stating the core action, describing conditional verification behavior, and listing the returned values plus cost. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and contains no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description compensates by explicitly listing the returned fields: tamper_check, attestation_type, agent_did, and signature_valid. It also discloses the fee and the conditional signature path, covering the key operational details an agent needs. Minor gaps like error behavior or what happens for non-agent_signed records do not significantly hurt usability.

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 description coverage is 100%, with parameter descriptions already covering record_id provenance, topic_id default behavior, and api_key purpose. The description adds no significant parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Check that a compliance record on Hedera HCS still matches its stored hash.' It clearly frames this as a verification operation rather than a write or query, distinguishing it from siblings like hcs_write_record and hcs_query. The conditional signature re-check further narrows the scope.

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 intended use case is clear: verify a previously written compliance record, with special handling for agent_signed records. However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use this tool, such as when a generic HCS query would be more appropriate. This is clear context without explicit exclusions.

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