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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool recomputes the entry hash, but it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether it writes or modifies data, what happens on failure, or what the response contains. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation safety hints.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. It contains no filler or redundant information, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's core function.

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?

This tool has a simple input schema but no annotations and no output schema details provided in context. The description is too brief to compensate for the lack of structured metadata, leaving out important behavioral and return-value information. An agent would have limited context to safely and correctly invoke this tool.

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?

The schema declares a single object parameter 'attestation' with no specific properties (additionalProperties: true). The description adds semantic context by indicating the attestation has an entry hash, but it does not specify required fields or the structure of the attestation object. It provides some meaning beyond the otherwise generic schema, but not enough to fully understand how to construct the input.

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's verb ('verify') and resource ('attestation'), and the method ('by recomputing the entry hash') adds specificity. This distinguishes it from sibling verification tools like verify_chain and verify_inventory_chain, which target different resources.

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 this tool is used for verifying attestations, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention any exclusions. The sibling tool names hint at different verification targets, but the description does not reference them, leaving the decision to the agent.

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