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

Annotations cover idempotency and destructiveness, and the description adds real value beyond them: the exact return taxonomy (GREEN/RED/UNVERIFIED), the free-tier limit (3 calls/day), and entitlement gating. The rate-limit disclosure is genuinely useful. It would reach a 5 if it clarified why readOnlyHint is false for what reads like a compute/verify operation.

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-loads the product tag then the operation, and every clause (return codes, rate limit) earns its place. The bracketed entitlement prefix is slightly noisy but functional.

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, so the description must explain returns, and it does so precisely with the three status codes. With 100% schema coverage and clear behavior, an agent has what it needs; only minor gaps (nested inputs format expectations) remain.

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%, and the schema itself documents omitting claimed_digest for UNVERIFIED plus the nested inputs payload. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the 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 and resource ('Recompute-audit an agent work claim') and pinpoints the exact operation (re-derive SHA-256 digest from inputs and compare to claimed digest). Clearly distinguishable from siblings like verify_settlement or forge_verify, which audit other artifacts.

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?

Explains the operating condition clearly: supply a claim to get GREEN/RED, omit it for UNVERIFIED. Context for when to use it is implied well by 'Replay, not opinion.' Does not explicitly enumerate alternatives among the many sibling verify/audit tools, so 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.