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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, and the description usefully adds that the call is free and where the proof originates. However, the behavior that matters most for a proof-checking tool is undetermined: whether verification consumes or invalidates the proof, whether proofs expire, or what a failure looks like. The presence of a separate approval_consume sibling hints consumption is elsewhere, but the description never says so.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with the core action first, followed by context and a minimal domain tag. Nothing is wasted, though the bracketed host note is operational trivia rather than decision-relevant content.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with annotations covering the safety profile, the description is nearly sufficient: purpose, proof origin, and audience are all present. With no output schema, the description should still indicate what a verification result looks like (valid/invalid, error conditions), which it omits.

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 0% for the single 'proof' parameter, so the description carries the burden: it does add provenance ('returned by approval_status'), which is more than the schema says. It provides no format, length, encoding, or expiry guidance, so the coverage gap is only partly compensated.

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 and resource ('Verify a proof string') and ties the input to its origin ('returned by approval_status'), which separates it from the other approval_* siblings for an agent scanning the list. It stops short of distinguishing it from approval_consume, the closest-looking alternative.

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 clear when-to-use context: sellers or gateways that require human approval, with a cost signal ('free'). It does not name an exclusion or an explicit alternative (e.g. approval_consume), so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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