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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states the read-only nature ('Reads on-chain state'), the return shape ('raw hex plus decoded fields'), and a notable limitation ('GPS coordinates cryptographically hidden... only the region is provable'). It also covers network support and multi-ID batch behavior without contradicting any annotations.

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 compact and each sentence adds a distinct piece of information: purpose, comparison, cryptographic limitation, network support, and batchId behavior. No redundancy, and the primary purpose 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?

There is no output schema, but the description partially covers return values by mentioning 'returns raw hex plus decoded fields' and 'response lists found/not-found per ID' for batch calls. It omits explicit error conditions or exact response format, but for a read-only verification tool with only three parameters and one required, it provides enough operational detail for an agent.

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% (3 params), so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: batchId 'also accepts several IDs separated by commas' with a per-ID found/not-found outcome, and explicitly ties parameters to a direct blockchain read rather than a database query. This exceeds the baseline.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Verify a GYOTAK catch record DIRECTLY from the Midnight blockchain.' It clearly differentiates itself from get_catch_reports by stating that this reads on-chain state instead of GYOTAK's database, making the tool's purpose unambiguous even among sibling tools.

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 an explicit comparison: 'Unlike get_catch_reports (which returns GYOTAK's own database), this lets you verify without trusting GYOTAK.' This directly tells the agent when to choose this tool over the named alternative, improving selection accuracy.

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