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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world and non-destructive, so the safety bar is low; the description still adds real value by listing the concrete checks performed (signature against published key, hash-chain, Merkle anchor, mainnet re-read) and disclosing the 'record not found' error mode. The 'Free, read-only' phrasing largely repeats the annotations rather than extending them, keeping it out of the top band.

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?

Front-loads the action and its scope, then compresses the five verification steps into one tight clause, closing with cost/safety and the error condition. 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?

With one required param and no output schema, the agent needs to know what the call inspects and how it fails, both of which are covered. It stops short of describing the verdict/result shape (pass/fail per check), which would fully close the loop.

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% and the single record_id parameter carries its own example (pr_000001), so the schema does the work. The description adds nothing about the identifier format or validity beyond the implicit 'record not found' failure case, which is the expected baseline-3 outcome.

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 (proof record) and enumerates exactly what verification recomputes: hash, service signature, hash-chain link, Merkle anchor, Arc transaction. It is distinguishable from generic siblings like proof_index, but it never contrasts itself with the closely named proof_check, leaving ambiguity for that nearest sibling.

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?

'Verify a Proof Record yourself' implies independent/trustless verification as the use case, and 'Free, read-only' signals it is safe to call casually. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance and no mention of the obvious alternative, proof_check, so an agent must infer which tool to pick.

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