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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two useful behavioral facts: the call is free and does not consume a blank (no side effects on state). However, it says nothing about what happens when verification fails, whether it is strictly read-only, or whether it can be called repeatedly on the same document.

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 short clauses, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the check list, then usage and cost. Every sentence contributes distinct information with no 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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage context, and cost, but leaves the agent without any sense of the verification result (pass/fail shape, error behavior). Adequate but with a clear gap.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents the `document` object and its fields. The description adds only an indirect hint that the blank inside the document is not consumed; baseline 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?

States a specific verb (verify) and a specific resource (a co-signed agreement between AI agents), then enumerates exactly what is checked: issuer signature, terms, both party signatures. It is clearly distinguishable from the write-oriented siblings (issue, mark), but it does not explicitly reference any sibling.

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?

"Use it as proof of agreement or dispute evidence" implies the downstream context in which verification is wanted, but it never states when to call this versus other tools or what precondition (a completed, co-signed document) must hold. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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