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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It explains the operation is a check of commit status, transaction, and conditional hash verification ('when revealed'), giving some context. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or mention any side effects, prerequisites, or authentication needs, leaving a partial picture.

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, well-structured sentence with no filler. It front-loads the main action and then specifies the sub-checks. Every word adds value, and the length is appropriate for the tool's scope.

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?

The description covers the key actions and conditions (commit status, transaction, reveal-dependent hash check). With an output schema present, the lack of return-format detail is acceptable. It omits usage guidance and edge-case explanations, but for a one-parameter check tool, this is reasonably complete.

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 0% for the parameter 'seq'; only its type is defined. The description adds that seq identifies the instrument signal, which is a minimal but useful semantic. It fails to define the nature or format of seq (e.g., sequence number, index) or any constraints, so while it helps, it does not fully compensate for the schema's lack.

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 clearly states the verb 'Check' and the resource 'one instrument signal by seq', then enumerates specific aspects: commit status, transaction, and hash recomputation against an anchor when revealed. This is specific enough to distinguish it from sibling verify tools like verify_fill or verify_reveal, which target different resources.

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 implies usage when verifying an instrument signal, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives, nor any exclusions. With many verify siblings present, the absence of usage direction is a notable gap.

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