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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: it is free, it is a public check, and it never reveals the terms (a privacy guarantee). It stops short of describing failure modes for an unknown or malformed handshake ID.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with what is checked and followed by the privacy and cost traits. No filler and no restatement of the title.

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 usefully compensates by enumerating the returned fields and the explicit non-return (terms), and annotations cover the read-only profile. Slightly incomplete only in that invalid-ID or not-found behavior 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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100% ('hs_... handshake ID'), so the schema fully documents the input. The description adds no format or sourcing detail beyond it, which is the baseline-3 case when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (public check/verify) and resource (a handshake), and enumerates exactly what is verified: both companies, status, existence of both matching log entries, and the on-chain seal. This is clearly distinguishable from the sibling mutation tools (ledger_handshake_offer/accept/reject) without opening any schema.

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?

Gives situational context ('useful for disputes and audits') and notes it is free and public, which implies when to reach for it. It does not, however, name an alternative or state when NOT to use it versus siblings like ledger_check_receipt or ledger_verify_report, leaving the routing choice to inference.

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