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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds behavioral depth by explaining L1 signature/key checks, L2 replay behavior, and the returned fields. No contradiction with 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?

Three sentences, each with a distinct purpose: main action, verification levels, and return values. No fluff or repetition, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, verification levels, return fields, and the L3 alternative. Since an output schema exists, detailed return structure is not required. Annotations cover safety semantics. Minor gap: no explicit statement about idempotence/open-world behavior, but those are already in annotations.

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% with descriptions and examples for both parameters. The description adds contextual meaning by defining 'reference' as a canonical dataset id or relative digest reference and explaining L2 replay behavior (related to replay_chain), but it does not explicitly map each 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?

The description uses specific verb 'Verify' and resource 'published Ed25519 probe attestation', provides concrete examples of references, and distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly noting that L3 is handled by verify_evidence. This clearly differentiates it from other verification and search tools.

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 clear context: this tool performs L1 and optional L2 verification, and explicitly points to verify_evidence for L3, providing an alternative. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or contrast with other sibling tools beyond the L3 mention.

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