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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the verification mechanism (recomputes the hash from the fields) and the return shape (ledger record plus boolean). However, it omits error behavior, side effects, and whether the operation is strictly read-only, leaving noticeable gaps for a tool with zero annotation support.

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?

A single, tightly constructed sentence that front-loads the action, then explains the return value without any wasted words. The structure is efficient and easy to parse.

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?

For a simple one-parameter verification tool with no output schema, the description captures the essential flow: provide a hash, receive a ledger record and a boolean indicating verification. It could be more thorough about return fields or error cases, but the core requirements for calling this tool are sufficiently addressed.

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?

The schema has zero coverage for the 'hash' parameter, and the description only partially compensates by noting the hash belongs to a 'committed call' and is used for verification. It does not specify the hash's format, length, or provenance, so meaningful ambiguity remains.

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 uses a specific verb ('Verify'), names the resource ('a committed call by hash'), and explains what it returns, making the tool's purpose unmistakable. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling commit_call, so it misses the top score that requires distinguishing from siblings.

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 imperative 'Verify a committed call by hash' implies when to use this tool, but it gives no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like commit_call or get_agent. The usage context is clear but left to inference, placing it at the 'implied usage' level.

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