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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add useful behavior: it accepts SHA-256 or artifact filename, verifies sealing, and returns an Ed25519-signed receipt. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether it incurs a cost, what failure modes exist, or what exactly the receipt contains.

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 at three sentences, and the purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence. The second sentence adds usage motivation but is slightly tangential; still, it earns its place by clarifying cost positioning.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple lookup: it explains what is verified, the input variants, and the signed receipt return. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it omits details like receipt contents, error behavior, cost amount, and any authentication or read-only expectations, so an agent might not have full confidence in the result.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only a high-level mention of SHA-256 or artifact filename, while the schema already thoroughly documents both parameters, their formats, and the found=false 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 ('Verify') and resource ('OTS/Bitcoin-anchored priority manifest'), and clarifies it returns the time it was sealed. This clearly differentiates it from the sibling lookup tools, which target different domains like permits or contractors.

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 concrete usage context: this is the cheapest proof-of-priority lookup for exercising the paid rail end-to-end. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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