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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context by spelling out the return values (verification status, issued timestamp, methodology version, anonymized originating-org identifier) and the intended use case (authenticity confirmation). This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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, front-loaded with the core action, and includes all necessary information without redundancy. The first sentence states the operation and return values; the second gives the use case. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words.

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 verification tool with one parameter, an output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, what it returns, and when to use it. It is fully self-contained and leaves no significant gaps for an agent to infer.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage: the hash parameter is fully described with its format, purpose, and where to find it in export files. Since the schema already provides complete parameter semantics, the description does not need to add more. The tool description also references 'content hash,' aligning with the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate per the rubric.

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 action: 'Verify a signed PhaseFolio export by content hash.' It specifies the resource (signed PhaseFolio export) and the method (content hash), and distinguishes it from all sibling tools (none of which are about verification). It also lists the returned fields, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 provides explicit usage context: 'Use this when a user shares a PhaseFolio asset snapshot and you want to confirm it's authentic before citing the analysis.' This gives a clear 'when to use' scenario. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternative tools, but the guidance is concrete and sufficient for an agent to select the tool appropriately.

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