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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context by explaining the integrity-check semantics: it confirms that the evaluation's claim, evidence, and conclusion have not been altered since signing. This goes beyond the annotations and clarifies what verification actually checks.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core purpose and verification semantics appear first, followed by a clear usage condition and a single parameter definition. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description covers the essential context: what the tool does, when to use it, and what input is required. It could be slightly more complete by noting what a successful verification result looks like, but the output schema likely covers the 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%, and the description's Args section essentially restates the schema's parameter documentation ('the full attestation object as JSON text'). The description adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb and resource: it verifies a Zetesis attestation and precisely states what is confirmed—that claim, evidence, and conclusion have not been altered since signing. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like evaluate_claim, zetesis_evidence, and zetesis_scope, which serve different purposes.

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 explicit context: use it when someone has a Zetesis dossier or attestation and wants to independently re-check it. It does not mention explicit exclusions or alternative sibling tools, but the stated use case is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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