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

With no annotations, the description must cover behavioral aspects. It explains the recomputation and comparison process, lists all checked fields, and mentions cost. However, it does not describe what happens on mismatch (return value structure) or side effects.

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 concise: two sentences plus a list of fields. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is clear. No fluff or repetition.

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 complexity (nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the tool's purpose, parameters, and verification approach adequately. Missing return format details, but the core behavior is well explained.

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?

Both parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds practical context for canonicalInput by noting it's the original incident JSON from submit_incident or submit_otel_trace, which aids agent understanding beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool's function: independently re-derive a CausalCertificate and compare byte-for-byte. It specifies the verification path, lists checked fields, and distinguishes it from verify_certificate by emphasizing no trust in issuer.

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 provides context about when to use (strongest verification, no trust needed) but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or how it compares to alternatives beyond cost. It implies a use case but does not fully address decision criteria.

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