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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond those: it recomputes hash-chain commitments, checks enabled signatures and anchors, and returns the actual verifier verdict including failures. This gives the agent a realistic picture of what happens without undermining the readOnlyHint.

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 tightly packed sentences, each earning its place: the first states the action and mechanism, the second clarifies return behavior, and the third states a critical limitation. There is no fluff or redundant restatement of the title.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what is verified, how, what is returned, and what is explicitly out of scope. An agent has enough context to decide when to invoke it and what to expect in the response.

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?

The schema describes the only parameter, 'stream', with 100% coverage including a default value. The description reinforces 'ledger stream' but does not add new semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the parameter documentation.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Verify a ledger stream'. It then explains the method ('recomputing hash-chain commitments and checking enabled signatures and anchors') and clearly distinguishes its scope ('not economic accuracy'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from any sibling tool.

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 gives clear context: use this to verify record integrity via ledger stream verification. It also provides a notable exclusion with 'not economic accuracy', which helps an agent avoid using it for economic validation. No alternative tools are named, but no sibling appears directly similar, so the guidance is sufficient though not exhaustive.

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