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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it discloses the return value (an on-chain seal) and the auth requirement ('no key needed'), which an agent needs to know it can call this without credentials. It stops short of describing failure behavior or rate limits.

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 tight sentences: the verification action and its guarantee come first, followed by the cost/auth note. No filler, no repetition, everything front-loaded.

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 one-param verification tool with no output schema, the description supplies the key missing piece by stating it returns the on-chain seal. Combined with the readOnly annotation and the auth note, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only edge-case behavior on a failed verification is unstated.

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% and the single 'document' param is already documented as 'exactly as exported'. The description's 'exactly what was exported' phrasing reinforces the integrity expectation but adds little syntactic or structural detail 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 (Check/Verify) plus the exact resources (CBOM and migration-plan document) and the guarantee being verified (exactly what was exported from Privi Ledger). This differentiates it from the many siblings (gov_pqc_export, gov_ai_verify_export, gov_pqc_plan) by naming the artifact type and the source ledger.

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 only implied: you call it on a document that was exported from Privi Ledger. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no mention of the related export step that produces the input, and no contrast with gov_ai_verify_export despite it being a near-twin. 'Free; no key needed' is a helpful gate but not routing guidance.

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