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

Annotations cover the safety profile (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds genuinely new behavior: what is actually checked (signature, scope, event commitment), that it is free, and the critical caveat that a valid signature does not independently prove execution.

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?

Five tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose and scope, then prerequisites, then the alternative-tool routing, then the trust caveat. Every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be described; the description instead supplies the routing, prerequisite, and trust-model context the structured fields cannot. Complete for a two-parameter verification tool with rich schema and annotations.

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% across both parameters, with detailed nested field docs, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description references the receipt and the checks performed but adds no field-level syntax or format detail beyond it, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (an execution event plus its unchanged receipt) and pins the origin to issue_agent_receipt. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling verify_proof_receipt, which handles the proof-envelope format.

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 routes the agent: use verify_proof_receipt for the distinct proof-envelope format, and notes no wallet or new issuance is required, making the cost/prerequisite model clear. It even signals the trusted-key dependency ('against this issuer').

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