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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: the token is an EdDSA JWT and the call returns who typed it, when, and the human score. It omits auth requirements, rate limits, and failure behavior, so it is good but not exhaustive.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what is verified, then what to pass, then what is returned. No filler and nothing redundant with the schema.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so (who typed it, when, human score). It is nearly complete; the main missing piece is what the tool returns or raises when the proof is invalid or expired.

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 baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining the semantic role of text and origin — verifying the proof is bound to exactly that text on that site — which clarifies why these arguments matter, not just their types.

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 precise verb and resource: 'Verify a Proof of Type proof token (EdDSA JWT).' It also names the exact purpose (confirm the proof is for that text on that site), so an agent immediately knows what the tool does and cannot confuse it with explain/get_quickstart.

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 gives clear invocation context: pass the text and site origin to bind the proof to exactly that text/site. It does not, however, state when not to use it or what to do on failure, and it implies text/origin are needed while the schema marks only token as required, which is slightly imprecise guidance.

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