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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it declares the operation read-only, asserts no personal data is involved, and defines the not-found behavior (found:false for unknown hashes). This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema, though auth requirements, rate limits, and latency are unstated.

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 English sentence is front-loaded with the action and then the input, which is good structure. However, the appended Danish parenthetical is a verbatim translation that adds no new information for an agent reading the English text, so not every sentence earns its place.

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, yet the description enumerates the returned fields (signature, issue date, reviewer, regulatory-change flag, found:false), so an agent knows what to expect. For a single-parameter verification tool this is nearly complete, with only provenance/error specifics left implicit.

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% for the single parameter, so the schema already documents the 64-hex sha256 and its source. The description largely restates that (footer or link), so it adds little beyond the schema — the baseline 3 for full schema coverage 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 (a PowerQuant deliverable), and enumerates exactly what is checked: signature, issue date, reviewer, and regulatory-change impact. The subject domain (PowerQuant deliverables, powerquant.dk) clearly distinguishes it from the ai_act/art50 sibling tools.

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 tells the agent precisely what input is needed and where to obtain it (the 64-hex sha256 in the document footer or the /verify/<sha> link), which effectively defines the trigger condition. It does not state when not to use it or name an alternative, but no sibling performs verification, so the gap is minor.

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