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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden and does so excellently. It reveals the exact verification algorithm, the security rationale (self-issued keys prove only self-consistency), and the three verdicts with their meanings, including the subtle UNCHECKABLE vs INVALID distinction.

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?

The description is long but every sentence earns its place: it covers the mechanism, security rule, verdict semantics, accepted input types, and exclusions without filler. The core action and verdicts are front-loaded, with rationale and caveats following naturally.

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 cryptographic verification tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is exceptionally complete. It covers input formats, the canonical-body recomputation, Ed25519 signature checking, the pinned key reference, the self-consistent-card failure mode, and the full verdict taxonomy, leaving little ambiguity for an agent.

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?

The schema already documents the single `card` parameter at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful clarification by stating accepted forms (JSON object, JSON string, councilof.ai / csoai.org URL) and, importantly, the negative constraint 'Never a certification,' which helps agents avoid a likely misuse.

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 specific action ('Verify a signed gspc.measurement-card'), the verification rule, and the three possible verdicts. It distinguishes itself from siblings such as get_card and verify_inclusion by focusing on cryptographic signature verification against a pinned key, and 'Never a certification' further narrows the tool's 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 provides clear context: use this tool when you need to verify a signed measurement card against the published pinned key, and it explains the UNCHECKABLE vs INVALID distinction. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives such as verify_inclusion or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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