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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe, closed-world read operation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it is free, needs no key, validates exact export provenance, and returns an on-chain seal. It does not describe failure behavior, but the remaining gap is modest for a read-only verification tool.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the verification action, followed by the return value and the free/no-key note. No sentence is wasted.

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 simple one-parameter, read-only verification tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, input provenance, cost/auth model, and return value. It could say more about the seal format or invalid-input behavior, but nothing critical 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the single parameter is already documented. The description adds that the register_json should be exactly what the supplier or partner exported from Privi, but does not add format, encoding, or validation details beyond the schema.

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 (check/verify), the exact resource (an AI Act register exported from Privi), and the outcome (return its on-chain seal). This is clear enough to distinguish it from sibling export/check tools without opening their schemas.

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?

Makes the use case clear: verifying a register received from a supplier or partner against the original Privi export. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as ai_act_check or ai_act_export or state when not to use it, but the context is strong.

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