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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the paid-resource cost behavior and determinism, but it does not disclose the output format or how material differences are reported. It doesn't contradict annotations.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, use/exclusions, and cost. No filler; the main purpose is 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 5-parameter tool with no output schema and no param descriptions, this description is too thin. It omits the return format (what a 'report' looks like), parameter-level semantics, and examples. It differentiates the tool but doesn't equip an agent to call it correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden. It explains that 'expected' and 'observed' are compared and that ignore_paths, required_paths, and numeric_tolerance constitute 'caller-supplied verification rules,' but it never defines path syntax, tolerance application, or how these parameters interact. This leaves agents to guess at semantics.

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 states a specific verb ('compares'), resource ('expected and observed values'), and outcome ('reports material differences'), and explicitly scopes use to 'reliability quality / vendor lock in.' It also lists exclusions (legal, identity, sanctions, fraud, contractual, regulatory) that differentiate it from sibling verification tools.

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?

It provides explicit when-to-use context ('reliability quality / vendor lock in') and when-not-to-use exclusions, plus cost guidance ('Paid resource; $0.002 per call'). It stops short of naming sibling alternatives, but the exclusions effectively route an agent away from legal/identity/fraud verification tools.

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