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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses read-only behavior (no settlement, no on-chain write), free execution, and the return format (boolean validity + fingerprint). It doesn't cover error handling or permission requirements, but for a verification tool this is fairly transparent.

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 sentences: purpose, target detail, and return/behavior. Front-loaded with the main action, no redundant words, and each sentence adds value.

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 is adequate for a verification tool: it states inputs, return values, and side-effect profile. It could mention how to obtain verification_key_id or what happens with invalid proofs, but the schema covers parameters and the behavior is reasonably complete.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal new parameter meaning beyond the schema; it mentions Varuna/Groth16/Plonk research-stage for proof, but that is already in the schema description. No extra detail for verification_key_id or public_inputs.

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 tool's purpose is clearly stated: 'Verify a submitted attestation against a known verification key.' It identifies the primary technical target (Aleo snarkVM) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools focused on attestation creation or queries.

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 context that this is read-only and free, but does not explicitly say when to use this over alternatives (e.g., zk_query_attestation). It implies usage for verifying proofs, but no exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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