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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that: it discloses that verification covers signature validity and Merkle inclusion in an anchored log, and that the operation is free and open to any holder of the id. It stops short of describing the verification verdict or failure modes.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then layers the verification scope, ending with the access/cost note. No filler and nothing redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries some burden for explaining what a caller gets back. It gestures at this by naming what is checked (signature validity, Merkle proof) but never states the shape or meaning of the result, such as a valid/invalid verdict or failure reasons. Adequate but with a clear gap for a verification tool.

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% – the single check_id parameter is documented as 'gc_... id from a guard_check receipt'. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the schema does the heavy lifting. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb (verify) and resource (a Privi Guard receipt), then decomposes what is verified: the signed body, signature validity, and the Merkle proof into the anchored transparency log. It is much more informative than a bare name restatement. It does not, however, distinguish itself from adjacent siblings such as guard_check or ledger_check_receipt, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

'Free; anyone holding the id can verify it' implies the precondition (you need the gc_... id) and the cost, which is useful framing. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no routing against alternatives like guard_check (create the receipt) or ledger_check_receipt. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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