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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it does disclose genuinely useful behavior: the result is precomputed and signed, costs $0.01, and expires when the fingerprint changes. It still omits auth requirements, what the verdict actually contains, and whether it is a pure read, so the disclosure is partial rather than complete.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the resource and folds cost and invalidation into the same line with no filler. It is arguably under-specified rather than over-long, which is a completeness problem, not a conciseness one.

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?

For a tool with two required, undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too sparse. It does not explain what a verdict contains, how to obtain a valid fingerprint, or what happens on expiry beyond the word 'EXPIRED'.

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 0% and neither required parameter is documented in the schema. The description only tangentially ties 'fingerprint' to the expiration rule and 'server version' to scope; it never explains what 'endpoint' means or the expected format of either value, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 a specific resource ('precomputed signed verdict') and scopes it to 'one exact server version', which is more than a tautology. However, it is a noun phrase with no verb, so the agent must infer the operation from the tool name alone, and it offers no differentiation from the unrelated siblings egress_probe and fleet_census.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of the siblings. The only guidance-adjacent content is the 'EXPIRED on fingerprint change' caveat, which describes invalidation rather than when to call it.

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