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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, and the description's "recomputing its hash" is consistent with that pure-read profile. It does not disclose what happens on a hash mismatch (error vs. boolean result) or what the verification covers, which is the useful behavioral detail beyond the annotations.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and scope, with no filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations carry the safety profile, so return values need not be explained. However, for a verification tool the description leaves the parameters unexplained and does not say how a negative result is surfaced, which is a real gap for correct invocation and interpretation.

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 description coverage is 0% and both parameters (`agent_id`, `attestation_id`) are required but entirely undocumented in the schema. The description never clarifies their roles — e.g. whether `agent_id` scopes the lookup or identifies the signer — so it fails to compensate for the coverage 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 supplies a specific verb and resource ("Verify a previously issued attestation") plus the mechanism ("recomputing its hash"), which lets an agent tell it apart from the sibling `attest` that presumably creates attestations. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

"Previously issued" implies the attestation must already exist, so usage context is implied. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to alternatives such as `attest` or `record_outcome` if verification fails.

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