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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It communicates only cost ('Free') and says nothing about what verification actually returns (valid/invalid, claims, expiry), whether the token must originate from the bureau, or what errors look like.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and with zero filler. Every clause contributes.

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 one-parameter verification tool the essentials (what it verifies) are present, but with no output schema and no annotations the description should explain the return outcome and failure semantics. Those gaps leave it only minimally sufficient.

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 0%, so the single 'token' property is completely undocumented in the schema. The description partially compensates by identifying the token as an 'attestation JWT', clarifying its nature, but adds no format, encoding, or sourcing requirements.

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?

Names a specific verb (verify) and resource (bureau attestation JWT), which is distinct from sibling bureau_get_attestation (fetch) and bureau_verify_threshold (threshold check). It does not explicitly name or exclude a sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus bureau_get_attestation, bureau_verify_threshold, or the other siblings. 'Free' hints at a cost consideration but says nothing about preconditions or the choice between verification tools.

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