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

Goes well beyond the annotations: states it is free with no auth required, defines the exact-byte matching semantics, and explains how to read the verdict fields including the trust rule for `publisher` (null = unverified account) and the meaning of `conflict`. With readOnlyHint/openWorldHint already declaring a safe closed-world read, this adds substantial operative context, though it doesn't cover edge cases like empty or malformed hash input.

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?

Front-loads purpose and the hashing rule, then the verdict-field guidance, then the falsification-of-no-match caveat. Dense but every clause carries operational weight; slightly long, with the field-by-field walkthrough bordering on verbose.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly takes on the burden of explaining the return shape (`exact`, `publisher`, `conflict`) — including field ordering for conflicts. Combined with the matching rule and auth/rate context, an agent can invoke and interpret this tool fully.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds the critical constraint that matching is EXACT-BYTES-ONLY, which materially shapes what value of contentHash will succeed. It reinforces rather than replaces the schema's 'sha256 hex of the content bytes'.

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) and resource (content against existing stamps) and immediately pins down the matching rule (EXACT-BYTES-ONLY). Clearly distinguishable from siblings like create_proof and list_proofs, which create or enumerate rather than check a hash.

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?

Explicitly covers when to use (pass a sha256 hash to check a stamp) and when-not to draw a negative conclusion (a no-match on a re-encoded/screenshotted copy is expected, so fetch the original instead). This routing guidance is exactly what an agent needs to avoid misinterpreting a failure.

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