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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and reveals substantial behavior: cheap sub-second reads, push=True triggers a fresh on-chain attestation via Cloud Tasks with server-side polling and a 202 fallback after 90 seconds. It also discloses the gateway's auto-reattest behavior, making the tool's semantics transparent.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and uses detailed prose for push behavior. While longer than necessary, every sentence provides useful context; slight redundancy in the auto-reattest explanation could be trimmed.

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 covers the primary purpose, return values, performance profile, push behavior, and alternatives, which is strong for a tool with no annotations. However, the unexplained optional parameters and reliance on the output schema for full return structure prevent a 5.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains memory_key and push semantics, but envelope, filename, and receipt_id remain unexplained beyond their names, leaving a gap for three of five parameters.

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 opens with 'Fast structural verification of locker state,' giving a specific verb and resource. It clearly states the return value includes merkle root and attestation status, and explicitly differentiates from nukez_recompute_verify for byte-level proofs.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: warns against repeated push calls after every store/delete, explains when push=True is appropriate, and directs users to nukez_recompute_verify for byte-level proof. This directly addresses alternatives.

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