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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds meaningful context: it states the tool operates 'without exposing the server signing key' (a security guarantee) and is 'free and repeatable' (cost/rate implication). No contradiction with 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?

The description is concise: two sentences with no waste. The core action is front-loaded ('Verify the cryptographic integrity'), and the additional notes (key exposure, free/repeatable) provide useful context without padding.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and strong annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and adds useful behavioral notes. However, it omits what constitutes a successful verification or error conditions, and it does not clarify how this tool fits into a workflow relative to check_action and preflight.

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 the 'receipt' parameter, and the description only mentions 'one ScopeProof receipt,' offering no structural or format details. The schema itself merely defines the parameter as an object, so the description does not adequately compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('verify'), a resource ('ScopeProof receipt'), and the nature of verification ('cryptographic integrity'). It distinguishes the tool by its focus on verification, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools (check_action, preflight), so the differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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 description implies the use case (verifying a receipt's integrity) but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives. The phrase 'Free and repeatable' hints at cost/rate behavior but does not explain when to select this tool over its siblings.

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