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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those flags: the verification is based on a published integrity manifest, and path resolution is restricted to known snapshots, preventing arbitrary access. This usefully clarifies the safety and scope boundaries.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource, followed by the key scope restriction. Every sentence contributes meaningful information and there is no redundancy with the schema or annotations.

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?

The tool is simple, has an output schema, and its annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description provides the essential semantic restriction (known snapshots only) and the verification source (integrity manifest). Nothing critical is missing for an agent to correctly select and invoke it.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the important constraint that path must be a known snapshot and that no arbitrary path reading occurs, which gives semantic meaning to the path parameter. However, it does not elaborate on the optional sha256 parameter or verification comparison behavior beyond what the schema already states.

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 ('Vérifie') and a specific resource type (artefact Agent Surface) tied to a published integrity manifest. It also distinguishes itself from generic arbitrary file reads by clarifying it only verifies known snapshots, which differentiates it from sibling getters like get_integrity or get_artifact-like tools.

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 usage context: call it only when the path corresponds to a known snapshot and verification against the integrity manifest is intended. It explicitly warns that arbitrary path reading is not performed, effectively telling the agent when not to use this tool, though it does not name alternative tools directly.

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