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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. 'Verify and record' does disclose a two-step behavior: cryptographic verification and persistence. However, it does not mention what happens on verification failure, whether recording is idempotent, any authorization requirements, or the response/return behavior.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It efficiently communicates the core action and object, and every word contributes to the meaning.

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?

This is a cryptographic verification tool with four required parameters, nested objects, and no output schema or annotations. The one-line description does not address verification-failure behavior, side effects of recording, return values, or schema-encoded policy constraints, leaving important operational context missing.

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 only 25%, so the description must compensate, but it adds little per-parameter meaning. The 'principal-signed ECDSA P-256' phrasing roughly maps to signer_public_jwk and signature_algorithm, yet those are already suggested by the schema enum and signed_payload description. It does not explain signature_base64url or the full required signed_payload structure.

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?

The description identifies a specific action ('Verify and record') and a specific resource ('principal-signed ECDSA P-256 commission mandate'), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling recording tools by emphasizing the signed mandate. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the resource and cryptographic context are precise enough to avoid confusion.

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 tool is used when a principal-signed ECDSA P-256 mandate needs to be verified and recorded, but it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not reference any alternative tools. Usage context is inferable rather than stated.

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