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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's job is to add context. It does so by explaining that verification recomputes a content hash and checks the ledger, which clarifies this is an integrity check rather than a simple lookup; it does not describe failure behavior, but the output schema covers return values.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the action and mechanism immediately, which is appropriately sized for a one-parameter tool.

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?

The output schema removes the need to explain return values, and the annotations cover safety semantics. However, the missing parameter shape details and lack of sibling differentiation leave meaningful gaps for an agent deciding how to invoke this correctly.

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 ('certificate'), but schema description coverage is 0% and the schema defines it only as a generic object with additionalProperties. The description implies the certificate contains content whose hash is recomputed, but it never states the expected object shape or whether it should be the object returned by get_certificate/register_artifact.

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?

Uses a specific verb and resource ('verify a certificate') and adds mechanism detail ('recompute its content hash and check the ledger'). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the closely named sibling verify_artifact, so it falls short of a 5.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to call this versus get_certificate or verify_artifact. The use case is only implied by the verb 'verify', and there are no prerequisites or exclusions stated.

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