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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context: it is free, performs server-side recomputation, specifies the hashing algorithm, and reports two booleans (recordHashValid, signatureValid). This exceeds the annotation baseline by explaining the verification mechanics and trust implications, without contradicting any annotations.

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 two sentences long and front-loaded with 'Verify a Hermes-signed assurance record for free.' Every clause earns its place: the algorithm, the outputs, and the use case are all covered without any redundant wording.

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 moderate complexity (two nested object parameters, output schema present), the description fully covers the tool's purpose, algorithm, outputs, and usage context. It even notes the free cost and the trust rationale. The output schema likely covers return values, so the description is complete for an agent to decide when and how to invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both 'record' and 'integrity' objects already described in the schema. The description adds that the tool recomputes the hash and signature, but does not provide new semantic detail about the parameters themselves. It stays at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 verifies a Hermes-signed assurance record, detailing the exact process (recomputes canonical hash with hermes-stable-json-v1 + SHA-256 and HMAC signature) and the output fields (recordHashValid / signatureValid). It also distinguishes this from assurance_attest by explicitly naming it as the source of attestations to audit, satisfying the verb+resource+differentiation requirement.

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 explicitly says 'Use it to audit attestations produced by assurance_attest without trusting the agent that produced them,' giving clear when-to-use guidance. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is strong enough to differentiate from siblings like evidence_verify and assurance_attest.

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