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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value on top: it enumerates the server-side checks (ZK proof validity, Gloam vault origin, recipient, expiry, live vault state) and reassures that proofs hold no secrets, which informs an agent's handling decisions.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the verb and the accepted proof types; the second sentence covers behavior and the no-secrets caveat. Nothing is padded or 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 the burden of explaining what verification returns, and it never says whether the result is a boolean, a pass/fail report, or the individual check outcomes it just listed. The list of performed checks strongly implies the return content, but the actual response shape is left to inference.

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?

There is a single parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the 'proof' string and its prefixes. The description's enumeration of the same four prefixes is useful orientation but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline-3 case.

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 (check/verify) and resource (a Gloam proof), then enumerates the four proof prefixes it accepts (gloamfunds1:, gloampay1:, gloamroll1:, gloamdisc1:). No sibling tool performs verification, so the agent can route here unambiguously.

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 'a Gloam proof someone shared with you' gives clear triggering context, and the reference to gloam.trade/verify anchors the equivalent offline behavior. It does not state any when-not condition or name an alternative tool, but no plausible alternative exists among the siblings.

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