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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the core behavior: the hash is resolved against attestation tables and returns either what it attests to or an unknown result, which is meaningful return-semantics disclosure. It says nothing about permissions, whether the lookup is read-only, or any rate/consistency caveats.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed by mechanism and the optional filter. No filler or repetition; the slightly terse phrasing is efficient rather than padded.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, input origin, and the shape of the result. It omits the permissible values of 'source', hash format expectations, and any behavioral caveats, which leaves meaningful gaps given the absence of structured support.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'source' optionally restricts which table is searched and that 'hash' comes from an envelope, giving both parameters meaning beyond their bare names. It does not state the accepted source values or hash format, leaving a real gap at 0% coverage.

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?

Specific verb ('Verify') plus resource ('receipt or citation hash') distinguishes this from the read/score siblings. The parenthetical '(basis_answer, entity_read)' identifies the upstream tools that emit the hashes, further pinning down what this tool consumes. It does not name a sibling it is not, so it lands short of a 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?

The description makes clear this is called on a hash lifted from a basis_answer or entity_read envelope, which is real usage context rather than inference. It offers no explicit when-not or alternative path, 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.