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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the useful domain fact that verification is scoped to published contracts, scenarios and sealed entries, but says nothing about what a failed verification means or any auth/ownership constraints.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and the object of verification come first. It is efficient, though it leaves obvious room for one more clause of routing or return-value context.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the annotations carry the safety profile. However, for a verification tool with a 0%-documented parameter, the description does not state what a positive or negative result implies or when an agent should reach for it over the sibling validators, leaving the definition only minimally 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 description coverage is 0% and the only param is named generically as 'digest'. The description compensates partially by specifying it is a SHA-256 digest, which is genuine added meaning, but gives no format, encoding, or length details and says nothing about how the digest relates to the contracts/scenarios it is checked against.

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 (Verify) and resource (SHA-256 digest) plus the domain objects it checks against (contracts, scenarios, sealed entries). It is clear on its own, but it never names or contrasts with the close siblings strategy_validate, validate_gardenscript, or strategy_seal, so an agent must infer which validation path applies.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the many sibling validation/seal tools. The agent is left to infer that this is the check-one-digest path versus the broader strategy validation tools.

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