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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so safety is covered. The description does add genuine context beyond them — that a verified proof only covers its exact statement and assumptions, not outside truth or execution permission. However, it says nothing about what the response contains or how partially verified items are reported.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by operational caveats. The external reference URL is awkwardly placed but nothing is 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?

For a read-only tool with no output schema and two undocumented required parameters, the description covers the scope-of-verification caveat and the empty-input case but omits the result shape and the role of agreement_ids. An agent could call it but could not predict what it gets back.

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 0% for both params, so the description carries the full burden. It defers the 'items' field semantics to an external URL the agent may not be able to fetch, and never mentions 'agreement_ids' at all, leaving one required parameter entirely unexplained.

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 and resource ('Check supplied proof envelopes with the supported installed verifiers'), which tells an agent it is verifying proofs rather than reviewing or inspecting agreements. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like covenant_review__review or covenant_review__authority, and 'proof envelopes' remains jargon the agent must infer.

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 — an agent must infer it should call this when it already holds proof envelopes to verify. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus covenant_review__review or covenant_review__authority, though the note that empty input reports no proofs supplied gives a small operational cue.

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