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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses the exact meaning of verified:true (record exists and echoes data_hash), instructs the user to recompute SHA-256 for integrity, explains verified:false for unknown roots, and details the trustless verification path via the transparency log. This adds substantial behavioral context about return semantics and security properties.

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 dense but every sentence adds critical information: the verb and resource, response semantics, unknown-root behavior, trustless alternative, and access/read-only note. It is structured logically, starting with the primary action and moving to verification details, without redundant filler.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description fully explains the return behavior (verified field, data_hash, inclusion proof) and tells the user exactly how to perform content verification and obtain the needed log index/URL from markovian_stamp. It covers both normal and trustless usage, making the tool self-sufficient for an AI 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 only says 'merkle_root to verify,' but the description enriches this by explaining it's the stamp's merkle_root, defining behavior for known/unknown values, and connecting it to the data_hash comparison. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, but the added semantic context about verification logic justifies a 4.

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 opens with 'Look up a Markovian stamp by its merkle_root against the public verifier,' which is a specific verb+resource+parameter construction. It clearly distinguishes from siblings by focusing on verification rather than stamping (markovian_stamp) or tracing (markovian_trace), and further clarifies 'Read-only; anyone can run it.'

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 states this is the verification step and references markovian_stamp as the source of the log index/inclusion URL, making the workflow between stamp and verify explicit. It also provides the trust-nobody alternative, implying that users who don't trust this endpoint should use the witnessed inclusion proof, though it does not explicitly list exclusions or when to prefer a sibling.

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