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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, and the description adds genuine domain behavior: it discloses the two-stage check (commit status/transaction, then, when revealed, hash recomputation and anchor folding). It stops short of saying what a negative or not-yet-revealed result looks like, but that is partly covered by the output schema.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the checks in order of execution. Nothing redundant, and the conditional 'when revealed' is placed correctly.

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 annotations, a fully documented single parameter, and an output schema explaining return values, the description covers what is required to call it correctly. The only gap is the absence of guidance on unrevealed or failing signals, which is minor given the output schema.

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% and the single seq parameter is fully documented with type and example. The description only restates 'by seq' without adding format or range meaning, so it matches the baseline rather than exceeding it.

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 ('Check') and resource ('one instrument signal by seq') and enumerates what is checked: commit status, transaction, and hash recomputation against the record and anchor. 'One ... by seq' implicitly separates it from list-style siblings such as instrument_signals and latest_signals, though no sibling is named.

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?

Usage is only implied — an agent can infer this is the single-signal verification call versus the listing tools, but the description never says when to prefer it over verify_reveal, verify_fill, or instrument_state, nor any prerequisite (e.g. that verification is only meaningful once revealed).

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