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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior; the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond these: it returns valid, errors, artifact hash, and verification scope, and it explicitly limits verification to shape/explicit values. The state_id/read_receipt explanation further clarifies how reuse verification works, adding value beyond the structured annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core action and return values appear first, followed by the key limitation, then optional parameter behavior. Every sentence earns its place without unnecessary 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 an output schema exists and annotations cover safety/idempotency, the description provides the remaining essential context: what the tool verifies, what it does not do, and how optional state verification works. The artifact's acceptable forms and the verification scope are explicit, making the tool callable without guessing.

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 67%, and the description compensates well: it clarifies that artifact can be a JSON artifact, code string, or structured plan, and explains that state_id/read_receipt verify use of an identical previously retrieved state. The attractor_trace_id and attractor_knowledge_id parameters are already documented in the schema, so the description is not required to repeat them.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Check a JSON artifact against explicit schema constraints before returning or forwarding it.' It clearly distinguishes verification of artifacts from schema validation and semantic proof, and the explicit 'does not execute code, prove semantics or certify a plan' boundary separates it from other sibling tools.

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 gives clear usage context ('before returning or forwarding it') and explicit exclusions (does not execute code, prove semantics, or certify a plan). It stops short of naming alternative sibling tools or stating conditions for when to choose a different tool, but the exclusions provide useful decision guidance.

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