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

Annotations already establish read-only and open-world behavior, but the description adds meaningful context: it verifies an ed25519 signature against the published IoMarkets key and checks USDC payment confirmation on Algorand mainnet via a public indexer IoMarkets does not run. It does not describe return values or failure behavior.

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 a single front-loaded sentence that states the action before the verification criteria. It is dense with parenthetical detail but has no wasted sentences.

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 verification tool with no output schema, the description explains what is checked but not what a successful or failed verification returns. Input, signature, and payment-confirmation context are covered, but result shape and error behavior are left unspecified.

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%, so the proof parameter is already documented. The description reinforces that the proof is { payload, signature } JSON text, but adds no syntax or validation details beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline for a fully described single parameter.

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 and resource: check a signed proof. It also defines the proof as the { payload, signature } JSON returned by a Data API proof route, which distinguishes it from generic validation siblings like validate_message or verify_execution_report.

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?

Usage is implied by 'the { payload, signature } JSON a Data API proof route returns,' so an agent can infer this is for verifying proof-route output. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives among the sibling verification tools.

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