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

Annotations already set readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those: it is a public lookup, requires no workspace connection, and sends no credential upstream. This reassures the agent about side effects and authentication needs. It does not detail failure modes or response format, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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 two short, purposeful sentences. The core action and key constraint are front-loaded, and the behavioral note about public lookup is added without redundancy. Every clause earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter, read-only tool with annotations covering safety and openness, the description covers purpose, input, and notable behavioral traits. It does not specify the exact return value or verification result format, and there is no output schema to fill that gap, which prevents a perfect score.

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 hash parameter is already well documented in the schema. The description adds only marginal nuance by emphasizing the hash must be the 'actual Assinafy SHA-1 signature hash,' which clarifies provenance rather than format or semantics. This meets the baseline but does not significantly exceed it.

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 states a clear verb ('Verify'), a specific resource ('a signed document'), and the means of verification ('using its actual Assinafy SHA-1 signature hash'). This is clearly distinct from siblings like assinafy_delete_document or assinafy_download_document, and the public-lookup nature further differentiates it from tools that require workspace access.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: it is a public lookup that requires no workspace connection and sends no credential upstream. This implies the tool is appropriate for verifying a hash without authentication setup. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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