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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a non-mutating verification and names the Ed25519 algorithm, but says nothing about what the result looks like, what happens on an invalid signature, or where the public key comes from.

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 front-loaded phrase with no wasted words. It is efficient, though arguably too terse to stand alone as documentation.

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 verification tool with no output schema, no annotations, and an undocumented nested parameter, the description is not complete enough. The agent cannot know the expected input structure or the return contract.

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 0% and the single 'card' parameter is an undocumented nested object. The description hints that the object is a 'dialect card' but does not explain its expected shape or where the signature lives, leaving the parameter largely undefined.

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) and resource (dialect card Ed25519 signature), making the operation unambiguous. It is clearly distinct from the siblings cached_card_query and list_servers, though it never explicitly names them.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no preconditions (e.g. whether the card must be fetched first), and does not mention any alternative tool. The agent must infer all usage context.

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