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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints at read-oriented behavior but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what happens on verification failure, what the return value is, or whether auth/rate limits apply.

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?

A single efficient sentence with no filler. It is appropriately short, though the compressed jargon and combined dual-mode clause make it slightly harder to parse than it needs to be.

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 tool with two undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this is too thin. It omits parameter meaning, mode selection, return shape, and failure semantics.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It never maps 'identifier' to the permalink being verified or explains what 'language' controls, leaving the caller to infer everything from the schema field names.

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 names a specific verb (verify) and target (a hash-pinned permalink against the index's state digest), plus an alternate read mode. It is technically precise, though the dual-mode framing and lack of sibling differentiation keep it from a 5.

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?

It mentions a second mode ('or read the current digests to pin') but gives no guidance on when to use verification versus digest reading, and never distinguishes this tool from siblings such as resolve, provenance, or citation.

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