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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully discloses the signature scheme (Ed25519), the key source (published T3 public key, key_id derived at runtime), the offline mode, and the upstream actor it mirrors — genuine value. But it says nothing about outcome semantics: what is returned on a valid vs. invalid signature, whether failure raises an error, or whether the call has any side effects.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and supporting detail (key source, actor parity) following. No filler, though the actor-mirroring clause is only marginally useful to an agent selecting the 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?

There is no output schema, so the description is the only place a verification result could be explained — and it omits that entirely. For a verification tool, knowing whether the return is a boolean, a report object, or an exception is central to invoking it 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the single 'record' parameter is documented, giving a baseline of 3. However, the schema's own description is bare ('The signed record object to verify') and the description adds no information about the nested structure the record must carry (payload, signature, key_id), which matters for a nested-object parameter.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Verify') and a specific resource ('RegBase Ed25519-signed company evidence record') with crypto-level detail. The operation is clearly distinct from the sibling read tools (get_latest_diff, get_snapshot_info, lookup_company), though the description never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers it should call this when it holds a signed record and needs offline authenticity checking. There is no explicit when-to-use, no statement of prerequisites, and no mention of when not to use it or what to do instead.

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