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

Beyond the annotations (which already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive), it discloses the full result vocabulary, the PERMIT/DENY recommendation, the fail-closed UNKNOWN+DENY rule, and the Ed25519/RFC 8785 JCS verifiability of the CRL layer. This is rich behavioral context an agent could not infer from structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, followed by return values, fail-closed semantics, and verification detail — each sentence adds distinct information with no filler.

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 output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating return values and the DENY recommendation, plus failure behavior. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so kid and card_id are already documented with examples. The description adds only the either/or framing of the two subject identifiers and says nothing about nonce mechanics beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (check), the exact resource (revocation status), and the two subject types it accepts (card_id or kid) against a named registry. It clearly distinguishes itself from verify_trust and check_domain by naming the revocation-registry scope.

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 conveys the scenario (verify a card or CA key hasn't been revoked) and the fail-closed posture, but never explicitly states when to prefer it over siblings like marketnow_verify_trust. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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