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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent, read-only, closed-world lookup, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that the payload includes per-check inputs and networks, which is useful content context, but says nothing about caching, refresh cadence, or whether the catalog is static.

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 sentence with no filler, front-loading the return content and its shape. Every clause earns its place.

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?

A zero-parameter catalog with a full output schema and rich annotations is nearly self-describing; the description covers what the catalog contains. It could be marginally stronger by noting the catalog is the entry point for the verify workflow, but nothing an agent strictly needs is missing.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and it correctly avoids inventing argument semantics.

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?

States a specific verb (return) and resource (supported check definitions, with the inputs and networks each requires), which distinguishes it from action-oriented siblings like proofable_verify and proofable_verify_submit. However, it never clarifies the relationship between 'check definitions' in the description and 'verifiers' in the name/title, leaving mild ambiguity about whether checks and verifiers are the same concept.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives. An agent must infer on its own that this catalog is meant to be consulted before configuring verification, rather than, say, a runtime check like proofable_proofs_check.

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