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

Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing the bearer-token auth requirement, the no-retry rule, an availability gate, and the 'address guards'. readOnlyHint=false is not explained (why a 'verify' isn't read-only), and the vague 'that check'/'address guards' phrasing limits the value.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action before constraints. 'Same as POST /api/proofs/verify, including the address guards' is dense but somewhat cryptic for an agent without the API reference.

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, the description never says what a successful or failed verification returns (pass/fail, error codes), and the availability condition is unnamed. Auth and retry guidance are present, but the agent cannot predict the result 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 100%, and both parameters carry their own descriptions, so baseline is 3. 'One code at one URL' merely restates the schema, and 'address guards' hints at URL-side validation but adds no concrete format or constraint detail.

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 (Check) and a tightly-scoped resource (one code at one URL), so an agent can distinguish it from list_certifications and request_certification. It does not explicitly name a sibling as an alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Gives two usage constraints ('Do not retry', 'Not available when that check is off'), which is real guidance. However, the condition is left vague ('that check'), and there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus request_certification or the underlying POST endpoint.

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