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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations by explaining exactly what verified=true proves and, critically, what it does not prove. This prevents an agent from over-interpreting the result and is genuinely useful behavioral disclosure.

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 short and front-loaded with the core semantics. The second sentence's compatibility note adds useful context, but the parameter-like phrasing of '_salt19_operation_id' creates slight confusion and keeps it from being perfectly clean.

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 one documented parameter and an output schema present, the description provides enough context for normal invocation. The only notable gap is the unresolved relationship between _salt19_operation_id and the actual input schema, which leaves an ambiguity about whether additional inputs are accepted.

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 fully documents the single id parameter, so parameter description is not necessary. However, the description introduces '_salt19_operation_id' as recommended but optional even though the schema contains only id and has additionalProperties:false, which could mislead an agent into passing a disallowed parameter.

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 action ('verify') on a specific resource ('SALT19 decision receipt') and clarifies it is an integrity lookup. It also distinguishes itself by defining verified=true as 'stored evidence still matches its recorded digest' and explicitly denying that it proves software safety.

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?

Clearly frames when the tool is appropriate ('Free integrity lookup') and what its result does and does not mean, which is strong contextual guidance. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as find-salt19-tool or commerce-verify, so there is no direct when-not comparison.

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