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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds valuable behavioral details: server-side execution, returning the verifier's verdict verbatim, and including even unflattering results. This goes beyond annotations to clarify the tool's transparency and integrity-checking nature.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Every clause adds meaning: the first sentence details the verification process, the second clarifies the purpose and usage context. No redundant words or extraneous details.

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?

Given the tool has a single parameter, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description is fully complete. It covers purpose, behavior, output nature (verdict verbatim), and usage context. No gaps remain for an agent to infer.

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% for the single parameter 'stream', which has a clear name and description in the schema. The tool description does not add additional parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema sufficiently documents the parameter.

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 clearly states the tool independently verifies a ledger stream by recomputing hash-chained commitments, checking signatures and anchors. It uses specific verbs ('verify', 'recompute', 'check') and resource ('published record'). It distinguishes from siblings like evidence tools and failure radar, which focus on retrieval or alerts, not cryptographic verification.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to check whether the published early-warning track record is tamper-evident and intact,' indicating when to use. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context and sibling tools imply it is for verification rather than lookup or analysis. No direct mention of alternatives, so slightly below perfect.

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