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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful scoping context ('current canonical', 'local') and specifies the exact artifact type without contradicting the 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?

The description is a single compact sentence with zero filler. The verb and object are immediately clear and 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?

For a simple, read-only verification tool with one optional parameter, full schema coverage, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description is sufficient. It identifies the target artifact, and the annotations and output schema cover behavior and return shape.

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% for the single optional boolean include_proof_steps, so the schema fully documents parameters. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the burden.

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 operation ('Verify') and a precise object ('the current canonical pharma graph's local Sigstore DSSE bundle'). It is clearly distinct from the sibling tools, which are lookup/search-oriented.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling find/search/get tools. The verification intent is implied but no conditions, exclusions, or alternatives are stated.

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