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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: it is deterministic, it recomputes the brain from content, and it defines valid=true as every claimed identifier matching the recomputation.

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 compact and front-loads the core operation before the validity rule. The unexplained 'VB3' reference is a minor distraction, but the text is otherwise efficient.

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, so return-value explanation is not required. However, for a verification tool with four parameters and zero schema coverage, the description should clarify the format parameter and what happens when neither brain_id nor content_hash is provided; it does not.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It adds useful context for content, brain_id, and content_hash ('and/or' indicates optional comparison targets), but it never mentions the format parameter or its accepted/default behavior, leaving one of four parameters undocumented.

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 names a specific action (machine-check a cognition claim), the resource (brain), and the core operation (recompute from submitted content and compare claimed identifiers). It is clearly distinct from build_brain in intent, though it does not explicitly name the sibling tool.

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?

It implies usage when there is a claimed brain_id or content_hash to verify against submitted content, but it does not explicitly say when to use this instead of build_brain or what to do when no identifiers are supplied. The 'and/or' phrasing leaves the required claim context somewhat open.

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