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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well by disclosing that it reads on-chain state, returns raw hex and decoded fields, and preserves GPS privacy via shielded records. However, the statement 'Currently preprod only' conflicts with the network parameter enum that includes mainnet, creating ambiguity about whether mainnet is usable.

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 front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every sentence adds useful context: what it does, what it returns, how it differs from the sibling, its privacy property, and its current environment.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately explains return content, source of truth, and usage distinction. The main gap is the unresolved contradiction between 'preprod only' and the network enum exposing mainnet, which prevents it from being fully unambiguous.

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?

The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, and the 'preprod only' note slightly muddies the network parameter's documented mainnet option.

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 verb (Verify), a specific resource (GYOTAK KOMON record), and a specific source (Midnight blockchain). It also distinguishes itself from get_komon_records by clarifying that it reads on-chain state rather than GYOTAK's database, and it states the output (raw hex plus decoded fields).

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?

It explicitly contrasts with get_komon_records, telling the agent that this tool is for independent verification directly from the chain. It also adds a clear environmental constraint, 'Currently preprod only,' which helps the agent decide when not to use it.

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