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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it returns a git commit hash, provides direct source links, and guides the user on how to interpret the returned data. It does not contradict any annotations.

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 well-structured and efficient: a single opening sentence states the action, followed by a clear list of verification points and a concluding directive. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and usage without unnecessary detail.

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's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is fully complete. It explains what the tool returns (hash + links), why it is useful (confirm specific code properties), and how to use the returned links. There are no significant gaps.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it correctly focuses on the tool's output and usage. No parameter-related ambiguity exists.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Verify the code running on Blueprint servers.' It also specifies what the tool returns (git commit hash and direct links to source) and lists concrete verification goals, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like check_balance or verify_transaction.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool ('Don't trust — read the code yourself via the source endpoints') and gives specific verification scenarios (private keys logged, Memo Program instruction, generate_wallet behavior). It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer when to use it.

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