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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds that the operation recomputes a hash rather than trusting a stored value, which is meaningful behavior beyond the annotations, but it does not say what happens on mismatch or what 'intact' is judged against.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its terseness contributes to the gaps in the other dimensions rather than reflecting deliberate compression.

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?

Because an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values. But for a tool taking an arbitrary nested payload object with no documented structure, the definition leaves too much unstated — notably the hashing basis and mismatch behavior — to be considered complete.

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?

There is one required parameter, 'payload', an open nested object with additionalProperties=true and zero schema description coverage. The description only implies the payload is hashed; it gives no indication of expected shape, which fields participate in the hash, or how extra properties are treated, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource pair — recomputing a payload's content hash and reporting intactness — which is concrete and actionable. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling export_attestation, which an agent could plausibly confuse with verification work.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus export_attestation or export_validation_response, nor any stated preconditions (e.g. the payload must come from an attestation already exported). The agent must infer the entire trigger condition from the name alone.

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