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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: the optional alternative trust root (bundle_hash you hold) and the conditional disclosure rule that claim content is returned only for physician-activated or clinician-adjudicated claims.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and mechanism, with the return-condition caveat last. No filler.

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 explain return semantics. It discloses the conditional content-return rule but not what a verification result looks like when the proof fails or the claim is not activated, leaving an agent to guess the failure response shape.

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 carry the load. It clarifies that bundle_hash is optional and represents an alternative root of trust the caller holds, which is genuinely useful, but it says nothing about claim_id semantics or format beyond the schema pattern.

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), a specific resource (one clinical claim), and the mechanism (Merkle inclusion proof against the published corpus root). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_claims, get_evidence_bundle, or check_gi_claim.

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 the usage context (verifying a claim's inclusion against the corpus root, optionally against a caller-held bundle_hash), but it never says when to prefer this over check_gi_claim or resolve_gi_claim, nor does it state preconditions or exclusions.

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