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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses the full return payload (stored hash/data, ledger creation time, lock status, owner, match boolean), states read-only/no-wallet, and — critically — discloses that the call is paid ($0.003 USDC via x402 on Base/Solana/Polygon/Arbitrum) with automatic payment by x402 clients. Payment requirements and return contents are exactly the traits annotations cannot convey.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: verification purpose, inputs, outputs, then read-only/pricing/example. Every element earns its place, though the x402 payment paragraph and inline JSON example make it longer than strictly necessary for selection.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully carries the return-value burden and also covers payment, safety profile, and a worked example. An agent has everything needed to decide, pay, and interpret results.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it frames object_id/transaction as the identifying input and text/hash/url as the optional 'content to check' that produces the matches true/false result, and its example shows how the fields combine — something the flat schema does not express.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Verify an IOTA notarization') with explicit scope: any notarization on IOTA mainnet, ours or anyone's, official package. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling iota_notarize (create) by being the check-side operation.

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?

Tells the agent what input is needed ('give the object id or transaction digest... and optionally the text, SHA-256 or URL to check') and provides a concrete callable example. It lacks an explicit when-not or a named alternative (e.g., pointing at iota_notarize for the write side), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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