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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly communicates that the tool verifies token origin, signing algorithm, and issuer, and explicitly states it never returns secrets (addressing security transparency). No contradictory statements exist.

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 a single, dense sentence that conveys purpose, verification criteria, output types, and a critical security guarantee. No filler words or redundancy. The information is front-loaded and every part 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 single-parameter verification tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers what is verified, what is never returned, and the output constituents. Minor gap: it does not mention whether the tool returns a simple boolean, a data object, or an error message on failure.

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%, so the baseline starts at 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it specifies the token format ('compact-serialized JWT'), acceptable token types ('id_token or access token'), and the issuer ('issued by Obelisk'). This provides concrete usage guidance.

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 specific verbs ('Verify that a JSON Web Token was minted') and clearly identifies the resource ('this Obelisk Gate') along with key verification criteria (ES256, correct issuer). It also lists the outputs (type, subject, assurance, principal), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like explain_rating or gate_status.

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 states what the tool does (verify token from Obelisk Gate) and what it does not do ('Never returns secrets'). It implies when to use it (whenever a token needs validation against the Obelisk Gate) but does not explicitly specify when not to use it or mention alternatives among siblings.

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