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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, and the description usefully adds that no proof is created. But readOnlyHint=false signals some write side effect (likely session/state), and the schema note that `data` is 'Used only when a new Proof is needed' sits in tension with 'does not create a proof' — the description never resolves what actually gets written.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and no filler; each sentence carries information (action, branching outcome, non-goal). Minor slack in the vague qualifier 'for the selected Proofable checks', but overall efficiently structured.

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 shapes need not be described, and the schema fully covers the six parameters including the nested `data` and `options` objects. Combined with two of three behavioral hints covered by annotations, the description is nearly complete; the only real gap is sibling routing within a crowded verify family.

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 100%, so all six parameters are documented in the schema itself (verifierIds sourcing from the catalog, chain as an optional network hint, walletAddress fallback to the signed-in account). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource ('Resolve a verification request for the selected Proofable checks') and clarifies the dual-mode behavior (return proofs or return the next step). It also adds a negative discriminator ('This tool does not create a proof'), but it never names the close siblings proofable_verify, proofable_verify_prepare, proofable_verify_submit, or proofable_proofs_check, so an agent must still infer the boundary from the description alone.

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 branching sentence implies when the tool applies ('Returns current qualifying proofs when they exist; otherwise returns the single next step'), which is useful precondition context. However, with four verify-family siblings in the list there is no explicit routing guidance on when to pick this tool over proofable_verify_prepare or proofable_verify, and no stated prerequisites.

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