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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the auth-free access model and, importantly, scopes the meaning of a match to byte integrity only, explicitly excluding scene honesty, completeness, or admissibility. It does not say what a mismatch produces (error vs. a negative result) or what the response payload looks like, which leaves a real behavioral gap for a verification tool.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the supporting scope and the caveat. Every clause earns its place, and the interpretive limitation is placed last where it reads as a qualifier rather than burying the primary instruction.

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?

For a three-parameter verification tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, preconditions, auth, and the semantic limits of a positive result. The one missing piece is the shape of the return value, which the absence of an output schema forces the description to carry and it does not.

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 100%, so the hash format, the kind enum, and the truth_packet_id scoping are already fully documented. The description restates the same three file kinds without adding format, precedence, or conditional-requirement detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 precise verb and resource: re-check that a file's bytes still match Verified Reality's registry for a prior sealed reference. It enumerates the three supported file kinds (media, Truth Packet zip, certified audit PDF), so an agent knows exactly what input domain this covers. No sibling tool overlaps this verification 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 phrase 'for a prior sealed reference' establishes the precondition: a hash must already exist in the registry, making this a re-verification rather than a first-time seal. It also clarifies that no API key is needed, removing an auth step from the agent's plan. It stops short of stating what to do when no prior reference exists or naming any alternative tool.

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