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

readOnlyHint=true is already declared, and the description is consistent with a safe verification operation. It adds the useful detail of what is actually done (hashing and table cross-checks) and that the call is free, but it omits what happens on a mismatch, whether the scan is expensive, and how results are surfaced.

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 tight sentences with the operation front-loaded and the cost hint trailing. Nothing is wasted, though 'Free.' reads as an unexplained fragment rather than earned information.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the return value — whether the agent gets a pass/fail verdict, a mismatch list, or counts of checked rows. It does not, which leaves a meaningful gap for an integrity-check tool.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. It correctly implies a whole-ledger scan with no filterable scope.

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 names specific verbs (recompute, cross-check) and concrete resources (SHA-256 hash chain, derived tables), so the operation is unmistakable. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the similarly named sibling court_recalibrate, which an agent could easily confuse with a recompute/verification action.

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 run this versus court_recalibrate or the other audit-style siblings, nor any stated prerequisites. The only usage-adjacent information is the word 'Free', which hints at no credit cost but says nothing about invocation conditions.

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