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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does so well: it discloses that no secret is required, that nothing but the receipt is read, and that the verifier signs the verdict with its own Ed25519 key. This gives agents a clear safety and side-effect profile even without structured 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 information-dense but every sentence earns its place: the first explains the verification algorithm, the second states the safety model, and the third explains the signed output. It is front-loaded with the action verb and contains no filler or marketing language.

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 cryptographic complexity, a single well-documented parameter, and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough for correct invocation. It covers inputs, algorithm, safety, and return behavior without requiring the agent to guess about secrets, external reads, or output format.

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 schema already explains the receipt parameter, including the important byte-exact string vs parsed object distinction. The description does not add significant parameter-level detail beyond that, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 verb ('verify'), a specific resource ('bernstein run receipt'), and a precise mechanism: recompute hash chains, rebuild the signed subject, and check Ed25519. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like explain_receipt or verify_chain by focusing on full receipt verification rather than explanation or a single chain.

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 useful context: it needs no secret, reads nothing but the receipt, and returns an offline-recheckable DSSE-signed verdict. However, it never explicitly says when to choose this tool over siblings such as explain_receipt or verify_chain, nor does it state any exclusion conditions, so usage guidance is mostly implied rather than explicit.

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