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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it declares the tool is free, public, non-attesting, and that only the four published packs resolve while any other id returns 'status unknown' because the certificates registry is not yet answering. That is genuine degraded-state and failure-mode disclosure. It stops short of describing the full response shape or any rate/availability caveats.

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 front-loaded sentences with no padding; scope, non-attestation, resolution limits, and the sibling redirect all appear in order of importance with zero boilerplate.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, resolution behavior, failure behavior, and the alternative tool. Only the exact structure of a successful response is left unstated, which is minor for a lookup.

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%, so the assetId description already documents the parameter, giving a baseline of 3. The description earns a point by adding meaning the schema cannot: which concrete identifiers actually resolve (the named packs) and that unrecognized ids yield 'unknown' rather than an error.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('free public lookup for an assetId / seal / QR token') and immediately scopes it ('Never attests'), which cleanly separates it from the sibling verify_record that it explicitly names. An agent can pick between the two without opening either schema.

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 states both when to use it (free public lookup of an identifier) and when to use the alternative ('For free signature and anchor verification use verify_record'). The routing rule is explicit and unconditional.

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