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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core verification checks (hash linkage, signatures, taint propagation) and the reference-grade nature, but does not mention return values, failure behavior, side effects, or permissions. This is adequate but not rich.

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 extremely concise, with two sentences that front-load the primary action. There is no redundant phrasing, and every sentence provides meaningful information.

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?

The description covers the essential verification criteria but lacks information about the return value or success/failure indicators, especially given there is no output schema. For a tool with a single well-described parameter, this is a moderate 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?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single 'nodes' parameter, with a clear description in the schema. The tool description does not add extra parameter semantics beyond the schema, so a baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Verify') and resource ('custody chain'), and lists the verification criteria (hash linkage, Ed25519 signatures, taint propagation). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like attest_custody_append and attest_custody_proof.

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 implies usage for verifying custody chains and provides a caution that this is a reference-grade implementation, with 'production-grade is Layer B' hinting at an alternative. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools or provide detailed when-to-use/when-not-to-use criteria.

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