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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds rich behavioral context beyond that — it explains the three possible outcomes (match, earlier version, never recorded), mentions a diff, a tool-poisoning scan, and a Merkle inclusion proof. This is valuable operational detail not covered by 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action. The second sentence efficiently lists return details and usage guidance. Slightly dense but no wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's complexity and that no output schema exists, the description adequately explains what is returned (match status, diff, poisoning scan, Merkle proof) and when to use it. It covers the necessary context for an agent to invoke and interpret results.

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 parameters are already documented in the schema. The description doesn't add parameter-level detail, but it clarifies the conceptual input (tools received from an MCP server) and the optional serverId hint context. Given high coverage, baseline is 3; the description's framing adds modest value.

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: check client-received tool definitions against Glimind's signed transparency log. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like scan_tools or audit_server by focusing on verifying a specific received tool list against recorded history.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it: 'before trusting a server's tools, especially after they change.' This gives a clear trigger condition and contrasts with other verification siblings implicitly.

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