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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so safety is covered; the description adds real value by disclosing the four verification dimensions performed. It stops short of saying what happens on a failed verification (exception vs. boolean verdict) or what the response contains, which is the remaining behavioral gap.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by the concrete list of checked properties. Zero filler and no repetition of structured fields.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and a fully documented schema, the core is covered. However, with no output schema present, the description should state what verification yields (pass/fail, error list) and how failures surface, which it does not.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema as 'Attestation ID or sha256 content hash'. The description mentions content hash only as a verified artifact, not as an accepted input form, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Verify) and resource (Codex Immortal attestation record), then enumerates exactly what aspects are checked: content hash, signature, timestamp, ledger inclusion proof. This clearly separates it from all siblings, which handle catalog, purchase, quote, and scan operations.

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?

Usage is implied by the tool's name and the fact that it verifies an attestation, but the description never states when to call it versus alternatives, nor any precondition such as 'use after retrieving an attestation' or 'call before trusting a record'. No exclusions or routing guidance are present.

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