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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds substantial context beyond that with the exact per-check list, the pre-v0.32 placeholder-hash failure mode, and the skipped-hash behavior when spec/output is omitted. It does not discuss rate limits, auth requirements, or costs of the hosted attestation, which keeps it at adequate rather than exceptional for an annotated tool.

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 action and return verdict, followed by the check enumeration and the two caveats about non-execution and reputation. It is dense but every clause carries information; the check list is long, though each named check is load-bearing.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the full burden of describing returns, and it does: verdict, per-check results, inclusion proof, net verdict of independent verifications, next step, and an Ed25519 attestation. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the response.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema by explaining that spec_hash and output_hash checks are 'skipped' unless the optional spec and output text are supplied. That is genuine semantic guidance about parameter interaction that the schema does not state.

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: runs the registry's integrity checks on one receipt and returns a pass/fail verdict. It also draws an explicit boundary the siblings don't cover, noting this is not an independent verification and is not counted toward reputation, so an agent can tell it apart from inam_check or inam_check_reputation.

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?

Implies usage clearly via the caveat that work is not re-executed and the result is not recorded or reputation-counted, which tells the agent when this lightweight check is appropriate versus a heavier verification path. It never names an alternative sibling tool, so routing is inferred rather than explicit.

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