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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses almost nothing: it does not say whether the call is read-only, how expensive a full-index comparison is, how results are shaped, or what a non-zero delta implies. The only behavioral signal is the implicit safety of "verify," which is not enough for a tool with zero structured metadata.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what is compared and followed by the actionable trigger. Nothing is padded, though the terseness borders on under-specification rather than genuine economy.

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?

No annotations, no output schema, no parameters, and no explanation of result shape or scope. For a verification tool whose entire value is in interpreting a delta, the description leaves the agent unable to predict what comes back or how to act on it.

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 has zero parameters, which normally sets a baseline of 4, but the description's "per entity" strongly implies an entity selector that the schema does not expose. That mismatch leaves the agent unsure of the scope of the check (one entity, all entities, or the whole index), which is a real ambiguity rather than a neutral absence.

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 phrase "On-chain vs indexed delta per entity" identifies the resource and the comparison being performed, which distinguishes it from the get_* siblings that return state rather than a discrepancy. However, there is no verb and no explicit statement of what the tool returns (a report? a boolean? a list of mismatches?), so the agent must infer that it computes a divergence check.

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?

"Check before trusting indexed data" gives a real trigger condition, which is more than most terse descriptions offer. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when the check is unnecessary (e.g., after a fresh sync), so the agent knows when to call it but not how it relates to the sibling read tools.

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