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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the output (verified bool, curve_name), algorithm behavior (ECDSA for SECP*, EdDSA for ED25519), and the constraint that sign_raw_data_mode and hash_algorithm must match the signing parameters. It also notes the X25519 limitation. However, it does not describe error scenarios or failure behavior, which prevents a perfect score.

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 with clear sections (purpose, parameters, output, limitation), and the purpose is front-loaded. It is concise but includes a parameter list that duplicates schema information and contains an inconsistency (plain_data_in_hex vs data_in_hex), which is a structural flaw. Overall, it is effectively organized but not flawless.

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 description covers purpose, parameter constraints, output format, and a curve restriction, which is a good level of detail for a tool with no output schema. However, the parameter name mismatch (plain_data_in_hex vs data_in_hex) creates a completeness gap that could lead to incorrect invocation. The tool has 5 parameters and moderate complexity, and the description should be more accurate to be fully complete.

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 some meaning (e.g., parameters must match signing values) but also introduces a critical mismatch: it lists 'plain_data_in_hex' while the schema defines 'data_in_hex'. This discrepancy undermines the added value and could mislead the agent. The description does not significantly enhance the parameter understanding beyond what the schema already provides.

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's function: 'ECC 公钥验签' (ECC public key signature verification). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like ecc_key_sign by focusing on verification, and adds algorithm-specific context (SECP* uses ECDSA, ED25519 uses EdDSA), making the purpose unambiguous and well-scoped.

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 implies usage (verify an ECC signature) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like rsa_verify or sm2_verify. The curve limitation (X25519 not usable) provides a limited exclusion, but there is no clear guidance on when to prefer this tool over other verification tools. The 'must be consistent with signing' notes hint at usage context but do not fully address alternative selection.

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