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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds genuinely new context: the check is performed independently by the watchdog, and it is metered ($0.002 after trial / plan rules). Cost and independence are behaviorally relevant facts not present in structured fields. It stops short of stating what a result looks like or whether a verify can fail/retry.

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 dense sentence front-loads the action and mechanism, then cost, then the argument. No filler. The trailing "Args: job_id" is near-redundant with the schema but costs little.

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?

With no output schema, the description should say what a verification returns (a verdict? a hash match?) and it does not, leaving the agent unable to interpret results without calling list_verdicts. What it does say — mechanism, independence, price — covers the calling decision reasonably well for a single-param read-only tool.

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 only parameter guidance is "Args: job_id," which merely restates the property name. No format, source, or validity constraint for job_id is added, so an agent learns nothing beyond the schema.

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: spot-verify a job's artifact, implemented as an independent fetch/hash/read-back by the watchdog. That mechanism detail distinguishes it from sibling verification-ish tools like checkpoint and list_verdicts, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

"Spot-verify ... now" implies on-demand, ad-hoc verification rather than scheduled ticking, and the metered price signals it is a paid action to use sparingly. However there is no explicit when-to-use vs checkpoint, watchdog_tick, or last_verified_success, so the agent must infer the routing.

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