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, enumerates the three possible outcomes (verified, valid-unanchored, invalid) plus the record-hash check, and rules out physical-product inspection. It omits auth requirements and any rate/limit context, but the outcome and cost disclosure is substantive.

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?

Front-loads the notable cost fact ("Free.") and then the core action, then input modes, then outcomes, then a scope exclusion. Four tight sentences with no filler; the terse "Free." opener is slightly abrupt but 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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the possible results, so an agent knows what comes back. Combined with the free/cost note and the negative scope statement, it covers what is missing from structured fields, with only auth/permission behavior left unaddressed.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning the schema lacks: it clarifies that `id` selects the single published demo record while `record`+`anchor` is the bring-your-own path, and tells the agent these are alternative input modes rather than independent fields.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: verify an AuthiChain signed provenance record with the open reference verifier, and explicitly says it does not inspect a physical product. That scope is clear, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling tool `verify` (and `query_provenance`), so an agent cannot tell the two apart from the text alone.

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 gives per-parameter usage branching: pass "polygon-anchor-1" for the demo record, or pass your own record plus anchor JSON. However, it never says when to choose this over `verify` or `query_provenance`, which is the main routing decision an agent faces here.

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