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

With annotations already covering readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, the description adds substantial value: it enumerates each check performed, discloses conditional behavior (spec_hash/output_hash 'skipped' unless text is supplied), explains the pre-v0.32 placeholder-hash failure mode, and notes the returned Ed25519 attestation. It also explicitly disclaims that work is re-executed or that reputation is affected.

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?

Purpose and verdict format are front-loaded, and each subsequent clause covers a distinct behavior worth knowing. The second and third sentences are dense and run-on with parentheticals, costing some readability, but there is little outright filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so thoroughly: per-check names, verdict semantics, inclusion proof, attestation, and a next-step hint. Combined with the explicit non-independence disclaimer, an agent has everything needed to interpret and trust the result appropriately.

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 semantics the schema lacks: spec and output are used to compare against task.specHash and result.outputHash, and omitting them yields 'skipped' rather than a failure. That conditional outcome is genuinely useful and not derivable from the schema alone.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb and resource ('Runs the registry's integrity checks on one receipt') and states the return shape ('verdict (pass or fail) with per-check results'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like inam_get_receipt or inam_check because it enumerates the integrity checks it performs.

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 closing sentence establishes an important boundary: 'The work is not re-executed: this is not an independent verification and is not recorded or counted toward reputation.' That tells the agent when this tool is the right (registry-side, non-authoritative) check. It stops short of naming the specific alternative tool an agent should use for independent verification.

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