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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds the context that the result is 'public', implying no authentication is needed, which is useful beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose the output format or any additional behavior (e.g., error handling, network calls). Given the annotation coverage, the description adds a modest amount of context, warranting a 3.

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 sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word contributes to the meaning. Ideal for quick parsing.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description explains the purpose but does not specify what the 'public verification result' contains (e.g., boolean, status string, detailed report). Since there is no output schema, the agent must infer the return shape from the name and description. This is a gap that could be filled with a brief mention of the response format. For a low-complexity tool, this is adequate but not complete.

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%, so the description must compensate for the hash parameter. It identifies the parameter as a 'Chapa badge hash', giving it semantic meaning beyond the raw 'hash' name. This helps an agent understand what value to provide. However, it does not explain the pattern constraints or the accepted formats (e.g., 8/16/32 hex chars or UUID-like v7 format), which the schema defines. The description adds some value but leaves room for clarification.

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 clearly states the action ('look up'), the resource ('public verification result for a Chapa badge hash'), and the scope (public). This distinguishes it from siblings like explain_verification, which would explain the process rather than return a result. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 implies when to use it (to retrieve a verification result) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like explain_verification or compare_profiles. It gives context that this is a direct lookup, which suggests it should be used when the raw result is needed, but no exclusions or conditions are stated. This falls under 'implied usage' with room for explicit guidance.

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