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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine extra context: the check is performed offline and the verification is a deterministic digest recomputation, telling the agent the operation is pure and repeatable with no external calls.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the scope (offline check) and immediately followed by the resource and mechanism. No filler, no restating of the tool name or title.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the single nested-object parameter is fully described in the schema. The description is nearly complete for a one-input verification tool, though it could note what a 'Settlens JSON report' is or where one comes from.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single `report` parameter, so the schema already carries the burden. The description only adds the implication that the entire report object is hashed, without specifying format, size limits, or what constitutes a malformed report — baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb (verify/offline check), a specific resource (a Settlens JSON report), and the mechanism (recomputing the deterministic SHA-256 integrity digest). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling verifiers such as verify_attestation, verify_payment_signature, and verify_solana_transaction, which operate on different artifacts.

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 word "Offline" implies the operating context (no network/chain access needed), which helps an agent choose it over the transaction/signature verifiers, but the description never states when to use this versus its siblings or what prerequisites (e.g., a previously obtained report) are required. Usage is only implied.

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