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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety and repeatability are covered structurally. The description adds the meaningful nuance that the verification is performed 'independently' of the original verdict, but discloses nothing about failure modes (e.g. what happens when the re-verification disagrees with the original verdict).

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 compact clauses: the action and scope first, the alternative routing second. No filler, and the disambiguating information is front-loaded.

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?

The output schema exists, so the partial return-value mention ('an object with 10 fields including algorithm, detail') is redundant but harmless. The real gap is the input: for a single free-form nested payload with additionalProperties=true, the description never says what to pass in, which is the one thing an agent still needs.

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 there is one required parameter, so the schema carries the burden. The description adds nothing about what the opaque 'payload' object should contain (presumably the preflight verdict being re-verified), leaving the agent to infer it from the tool name.

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 and resource ('independently re-verify a preflight verdict') and explicitly scopes it to counterparty preflight, which lets an agent separate it from the dozens of other verify_* and get_*_preflight siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Names the direct alternative ('use it rather than `get_counterparty_preflight`') and the condition that selects it ('for counterparty preflight specifically'). It stops short of stating when verification is warranted at all versus skipping the check, so it is clear context but not full when/when-not guidance.

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