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

Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by warning that 'SHA-256 is not a provider signature' – a material caveat about the strength of the assurance this check provides – though it does not state what a result looks like or how mismatches surface.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the operation comes first and the caveat second. Slight density of unexplained jargon ('SourceA-compatible', 'timestamp contract') costs a point on immediate comprehensibility.

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, single-parameter verification tool this covers the core action and its main caveat, but with no output schema the description should say what is returned (e.g., a recomputed hash, a match/mismatch verdict) and what failure looks like. That gap leaves an agent guessing at the response shape.

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 documents the single taskId parameter only by format/pattern, with 0% description coverage. The description partially compensates by tying the argument to 'your completed task', signalling that it must be a finished task's ID, but adds nothing about the UUID form or lookup behavior.

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 ('Independently recompute') and resources ('artifact hash and source timestamp contract') scoped to 'your completed task'. It is clearly a verification operation distinct from the task-creation and market-data siblings, though terms like 'SourceA-compatible' and 'timestamp contract' are left unexplained.

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 phrase 'for your completed task' implies the precondition (a finished task) and the intent (verifying its output), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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