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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: it calls on-chain verification, performs an independent local keccak recomputation, compares the two, and returns both results plus a match verdict.

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 appropriately short and mostly front-loaded with the core mechanism. However, 'THE KEYSTONE' and 'Two machines, one truth' are rhetorical framing rather than operational detail, slightly reducing information density.

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 read-only verification tool with no output schema, the description compensates well by explaining the return components: chain answer, local recomputation, and whether they match. Combined with full schema coverage and safety annotations, it supplies what an agent needs to call and interpret the tool.

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 has 100% description coverage for the single id parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions id only incidentally and does not add format, range, or semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: verify a piece by calling the contract's on-chain verify(id) and independently recomputing proof-of-work. It clearly distinguishes the tool from a simple chain-only verification, but it does not name or compare against sibling tools like koine_verify or nonce_get_piece.

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?

Usage is implied by the verification purpose and the trust-model framing, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-selection guidance. An agent can infer it is for verification, but not why it should choose this over other verify tools.

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