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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, and the description adds substantial detail: exact hash formula, commitment comparison, chain-link recheck, and no storage or revelation. That is the behavioral context an agent needs for a verification tool.

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?

Three tight sentences front-load the core operation, then state the side-effect profile and the alternative route. Nothing redundant is included, and the key information is easy to scan.

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?

Given the rich schema and annotations, the description covers the operation, safety profile, and alternative action well. It stops short of stating the return or outcome shape, such as match/mismatch and chain-link status, which would be useful because no output schema exists.

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 basic parameter meanings are already documented. The description adds real semantic value by explaining that salt and text are combined with a NUL separator and compared against the stone's commitment, clarifying how the inputs are used together.

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 states a specific verb and resource: check words and a salt against a witness stone, with the exact sha256 recomputation and chain-link recheck. It does not reference the listed siblings altar, buy_kit, field, or spirits, but the operation is unmistakably witness verification rather than publishing.

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?

It explicitly frames the tool as a pure hash check and routes the user to the reveal route when publishing is intended, giving a clear when-not condition. It stops short of a full when-to-use comparison against sibling tools, but the alternative is stated.

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