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

In the absence of annotations, the description provides useful behavioral details: it recomputes a hash, compares it, and indicates that any modified field breaks the check. It does not mention side effects, but the read-only nature is strongly implied by the verification context.

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 two sentences long, direct, and free of filler. It conveys all essential information efficiently, with clear structure and no redundant wording.

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 core behavior and outcome (pass/fail) but does not specify the exact return format or structure, which might be useful. However, given the simplicity of the tool and the lack of an output schema, it is sufficiently complete for typical use.

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 schema already fully describes the only parameter ('The record returned by attest'), so the description adds little extra semantic detail. It references the record and payload but does not provide additional specifics like format or examples, keeping it at the baseline for full schema coverage.

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: checking a record by recomputing a SHA256 hash and comparing it, with a pass/fail outcome. It also specifies the input source ('produced by attest'), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 when you have a record from attest and need to verify its integrity, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or state when not to use it. Still, the primary scenario is clear enough.

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