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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable context: returns a signed Ed25519 attestation, a 30-year compliance trail, compliance standards, and a cost range. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent anticipate output and financial impact.

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 three sentences with zero redundancy. It front-loads the primary purpose, then adds the return type and cost. Every sentence earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given that annotations cover safety and an output schema exists, the description is largely complete. It explains the purpose, the return format, compliance standards, and cost. It does not mention any usage context or alternatives, but that is partially covered by the purpose statement. For a read-only verification tool, this is sufficient.

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 coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already described in the input schema. The description does not add extra meaning about the parameters themselves; it only references the development_ref in the context of the compliance trail, which is already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate for high coverage.

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 the tool verifies city planning constraints for a development site, which is a specific verb-resource pair. It also mentions the return of a signed attestation and compliance trail, distinguishing it from generic verification tools. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools or contrast with them, so it loses a point for lacking direct differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many other verify_* siblings. It does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tools. The purpose is implied, but there is no explicit usage direction, so this scores low.

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