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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the return payload (valid/invalid, closed-loop or settlement status, binding assertions, machine-readable reasons) and the deprecation timeline. It does not state that the operation is side-effect-free/read-only, nor any auth or rate-limit expectations, which matters for a tool an agent may call repeatedly against third-party claims.

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 dense sentences with the purpose and scope front-loaded, followed by usage boundaries, return shape, and deprecation. Little waste, though the deprecation/migration warning is buried at the end rather than surfaced where an agent would see it first.

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 usefully summarizes the return values, and it handles migration and non-goals well. However, for a 9-parameter tool with deeply nested payload objects and no schema descriptions, the description leaves an agent unable to assemble correct per-kind inputs, which is a material completeness gap.

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% across 9 parameters including four nested free-form objects, so the description must compensate. It only clarifies the `kind` enum by paraphrasing the four artifact types; user, order_id, submitted_at, settlement, expected_order, execution_receipt, pre_trade_attestation and destination_pre_trade_attestation are left entirely unexplained, including which are required per kind.

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 and resource ("Verify signed evidence") and then enumerates the four artifact types it covers (pre-trade/execution pair, Base agent-swap settlement, Solana swap settlement, Hyperliquid order/fill), which map directly to the `kind` enum. This clearly separates it from siblings like check_trade_safety, trade_guard, and get_oracle_health.

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?

Gives an explicit positive trigger ("when a third party needs to check binding and signatures before trusting a claim") and explicit exclusions ("Do not use it to re-assess oracle risk or to authorize trading"), naming the sibling responsibilities it should not absorb. It also routes to the replacement tool trade_proof with the exact op value.

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