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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavior: it is free, keyless, requires no account, and returns the attested contents ('read what it says'). It does not describe what happens when verification fails or how an altered/tampered attestation is reported, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the audience/credentialing rationale second. Every clause earns its place and nothing is padded.

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 parameter, full schema coverage, no output schema and read-only annotations, the description is nearly complete: it explains the purpose, the tamper check, the access model and that the record contents are returned. It could say more about failure outcomes, but for this complexity level that is a minor omission.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is fully described as the attestation string from a decision or reconciliation. The description's mention of decision and reconciliation records only restates that context, adding no format, sourcing or validation detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema already carries parameter meaning.

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 verb and resource: verify a decision or reconciliation record and read its contents. It also names the integrity check ('was issued by SwapEazi and has not been altered'), which is more specific than the title. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling verify_release_record, leaving the agent to infer which record type belongs to which tool.

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?

Gives a clear usage context: auditors, boards or counterparties verifying a payer's records without an account. That establishes when the tool is appropriate and that no credentials or prerequisites are needed. It stops short of naming exclusions or routing to alternatives such as verify_release_record.

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