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

Annotations already establish idempotency and non-destructiveness, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context by stating the result is deterministic, machine-readable, and includes provenance and assurance information. This goes beyond what the annotations alone convey and does not contradict them.

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 tightly worded sentences with no filler. The core action and target are front-loaded, and the second sentence adds value by describing the output's nature and purpose without redundancy.

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 output schema covers return values, so the description need not detail them, but the tool has four required object parameters with 0% schema coverage. Key parameters such as consumer_id and invocation_context remain semantically unexplained, and the 'frozen Blue Cap verification contract' itself is not elaborated, leaving the agent with partial context.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only references 'assurance record' and 'referenced evidence' (likely assurance_record and evidence_artifacts). The required consumer_id and invocation_context parameters are not explained at all, leaving the agent without enough meaning to populate them correctly.

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 uses a specific verb ('Verify'), names the resource ('structured assurance record and its referenced evidence'), and specifies the standard ('frozen Blue Cap verification contract'). This clearly differentiates the tool from sibling tools like hash_compute and schema_validate, which do not perform contract-based 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?

The description indicates the tool is for governance and audit workflows, implying when it might be used, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over hash_compute or schema_validate. No exclusions or alternative selection criteria are provided.

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