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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the bar for added behavioral value is low, and the description clears it: it enumerates what is actually checked (ZK proof, vault origin, recipient, expiry, live vault state), discloses the network.testnet return flag and its meaning, and openly states the limits of what a payment or payroll proof reveals. That is meaningful context beyond the structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the accepted proof prefixes, then checks, then caveats. It is dense (four long sentences) but every sentence carries distinct information – proof types, verification scope, network flag, privacy limits, disc1 exclusion – none is filler. Slightly heavier than necessary for a single-parameter tool.

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-parameter, annotation-covered, no-output-schema tool, the description is nearly complete: it covers inputs, what verification entails, and one important return field. It does not outline the rest of the result shape (e.g., validity boolean, failure modes), which would be needed since no output schema exists, so it falls just short of full completeness.

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 one parameter at 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description adds value the schema does not: it explains that gloamdisc1 is syntactically valid yet never verified, which changes how an agent should interpret a successful result for that prefix. The privacy caveats about pay/roll proofs further contextualize what the parameter's content implies.

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 (check/verify) and resource (a Gloam proof) and enumerates the exact proof types handled (gloamfunds1, gloampay1, gloamroll1, gloambal1). It also anchors the operation to a known equivalent ('same checks as gloam.trade/verify'), so an agent knows precisely what it does and can distinguish it from any other tool in the set.

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?

The opening clause establishes the use case ('a proof someone shared with you'), and the gloamdisc1 exclusion gives an explicit when-not rule with a rationale (anyone can copy one from a public deposit). It does not reference any sibling tool, but none of the listed siblings perform verification, so no routing ambiguity is left unresolved.

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