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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that it is free and public, never attests, and returns 'unknown' for unknown IDs. It also notes the cost of the alternative, providing useful operational context. It doesn't mention side effects, but as a read-only lookup, the key behavioral traits are covered.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds key differentiators (unknown IDs, verify alternative). Information is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior (unknown status) and the key alternative. It doesn't describe the return format, but that is often implicit for lookups. The free/public nature is mentioned, so auth is addressed implicitly. Overall, it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 covers the sole parameter assetId with a description ('Seal, serial, or QR token identifier') that fully explains its meaning. The description's reference to 'assetId / seal / QR token' is redundant. With 100% schema coverage, the description adds no additional semantic value.

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 states a specific verb (lookup) and resource (assetId/seal/QR token), and immediately distinguishes itself from the verify sibling by saying 'Never attests'. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and differentiates it from cryptographic verification.

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 explicitly routes to the verify tool for cryptographic verification ('Cryptographic verify is tools/call verify'), giving a clear alternative. However, it doesn't mention the other siblings (dpp_readiness_check, get_pricing), though their purposes (readiness, pricing) are distinct enough that the context is adequate without explicit exclusions.

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