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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes that this is a safe read, and the description goes beyond that by explaining what the check actually means (credential issued by an authorized brand) and what comes back: brand info, credential hash, Base anchor, and risk level. It does not mention failure modes or what a negative result looks like, but the semantic framing of 'verify' is a genuine addition over the annotation.

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 core purpose and what-is-returned are front-loaded in the first two sentences with no preamble. The trailing Args block is essentially redundant with the schema, which is minor waste but does not obscure the main content.

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 single-parameter read-only verification with a full output schema and readOnlyHint, the description supplies enough: what is checked, who must have issued the credential, and a hint at the returned fields. Only the interaction with mt_salesguard_register (issuance prerequisite) is left unstated.

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% and the description's Args block is a verbatim repeat of the schema's product_id description, including the same example. No format rules, casing, or source-of-ID guidance is added. With the schema carrying the full load, baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb+resource pair: it checks whether a product ID has a valid ProductProvenanceCredential from an authorized brand. That is far more concrete than a bare 'verify', and the Salesguard/product-provenance framing distinguishes it within the crowded set of *_verify siblings, though it never names or excludes any of them explicitly.

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 usage is only implied: an agent can infer you call it to validate a product's provenance credential. There is no statement of when to prefer mt_salesguard_verify over mt_shopping_verify, mt_skill_verify, mt_travel_verify, molcheck_verify, or mt_get_track_provenance, and no preconditions (must the product be registered first via mt_salesguard_register?).

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