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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns 'each check result plus the data to re-verify independently on chain' and implies recomputation, which is useful transparency. It doesn't mention failure modes, prerequisites, or performance characteristics, but the core behavior is reasonably disclosed.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The core action is front-loaded and the return value is mentioned. It is concise without sacrificing needed information, though the second sentence is slightly dense.

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 tool is a single-parameter verification with an output schema, so the description doesn't need to detail return values. It explains what is computed and that results include re-verification data, which is sufficient for basic use. It lacks context on when reveals exist, how to reference a reveal, or edge cases, leaving a minor gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the sole parameter 'seq'. The description says 'by sequence number' and per the schema seq is a number, which adds some meaning by connecting it to the reveal concept. However, it doesn't explain how to obtain the seq, its range, or whether it's the reveal sequence or something else — the baseline is 3 when schema coverage is low but the one parameter is named and semantically hinted.

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 states a specific action ('Recompute the hash and Merkle fold') and a resource ('one reveal by sequence number'), which clearly identifies the tool's function. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_reveals, but the operation is specific enough that an agent can infer its role.

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 its usage (verify a specific reveal by seq), but doesn't state when to use it versus alternatives like verify_fill or attestation_stats, nor when not to use it. The context is clear enough for a straightforward verification task but lacks explicit routing guidance.

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