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

The description adds materially beyond the annotations: it explicitly states 'Never verifies locally — always calls the reference verifier', explains the public-route auth requirement, and discloses that keys are never supplied by the tool and come only from the issuer's well-known document. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs.

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 dense but not bloated; every sentence carries useful information. It front-loads the core action and endpoint before adding authentication, key-source, and network-behavior details. Slightly long, but justified by the complexity of the verification process.

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 of JWS verification, the description is remarkably complete: it covers protocol, endpoint, scope requirements, key sourcing, export profiles, and the fact that verification is always remote. The only notable omission is the shape of the response, especially since no output schema is provided.

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?

The single parameter jws has a rich schema description already, and schema coverage is 100%. The tool description further clarifies that the key source is the issuer's well-known document and that both full and public export profiles are accepted, adding value 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Independently verify a TaScan Action Receipt JWS', and further specifies protocol 6.8 and the exact endpoint. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like tascan_get_receipt, tascan_request_verification, and tascan_list_verifications.

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?

It gives clear context on when this tool is appropriate: for verifying receipts from tascan_get_receipt output or any TaScan-format receipt, and it notes it works for both full and public export profiles. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the usage conditions are unambiguous.

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