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

Annotations already declare the mutation/idempotency/safety profile, and the description adds genuinely new context: proof gating before payout, the failure consequence, a 3 calls/day quota and the 'ledger' entitlement requirement. It does not say what a failed verification returns (error vs. a RED result) or whether a payout is queued or executed immediately.

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?

Three tight sentences that front-load the operation and the gate condition, with the quota and entitlement as a trailing clause. The 'ledger' entitlement is stated twice (bracketed tag plus trailing sentence), which is the only wasted material.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should say what a successful verification yields (a receipt, an authorized payout reference, a digest comparison result) and it does not. Combined with an undocumented nested payload, the definition is adequate for invoking the tool but incomplete for interpreting its result.

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 both parameters are already documented, and the baseline is 3. The description clarifies that the claimed digest is what the payout is conditioned on and that it is compared against a recomputed digest, but adds nothing about the shape or size of the nested 'inputs' work payload.

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 mechanism (recompute the work digest) and a specific outcome (authorize a payout only if the claimed digest verifies GREEN), which is far more than a restatement of 'verify settlement'. It does not name any sibling (e.g. forge_verify, rng_verify, escrow_release) that an agent should prefer in other cases, so it stops short of 5.

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?

'No proof, no payout' implies the precondition for calling it, and the entitlement/rate-limit note implies cost awareness, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not framing and no alternative tool is named despite many adjacent verify/release siblings.

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