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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it uses an Aegis hash index and is free, but does not disclose what happens when verification fails or whether it contacts an external service. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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?

The description is short but contains redundancy: 'FREE - no payment required' is repeated in '(FREE)' at the end. This duplication wastes words and detracts from the clarity of the core purpose. Otherwise, it is front-loaded with the primary action.

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 must explain what the tool returns, but it does not specify whether the result is a boolean, a hash match, or other data. It also fails to mention any caveats around the verification process, making it incomplete for an agent to know what to expect from the call.

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 input schema provides a 100% description coverage for the single 'image' parameter, so the schema already explains that it expects Base64-encoded PNG/JPEG. The description adds nothing about parameters, which is acceptable given the schema coverage, but it could have clarified the image format or constraints for the hash index verification.

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 clearly states the tool performs provenance verification using an Aegis hash index, which is a specific action on a specific resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like register_hash by focusing on verification rather than registration, though the term 'strip-proof' is jargon and could be clearer.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons with sibling tools like register_hash or watermark_detect. The only extra information is a redundant statement about being free, which is not usage guidance.

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