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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool delegates to Trust Layer verify_signature, returns validity, signer, and timestamp, and provides the JWKS URL. This goes beyond a simple 'verify' statement and gives the agent useful context about the underlying mechanism and output. It does not, however, mention potential failure modes, rate limits, or that exactly one of jws/content_hash is required, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second efficiently adds key behavioral details (delegation, return values, JWKS location). Every word adds value, with no fluff or repetition.

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 tool with only two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, inputs, outputs, and the underlying trust layer. However, it does not explicitly state that jws and content_hash are mutually exclusive alternatives, nor that exactly one should be provided (the schema marks both as optional). This is a minor but relevant gap for an agent deciding how to invoke the tool.

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 input schema already includes descriptions for both parameters: 'Full JWS string' and 'SHA-256 content hash (alternative to JWS)'. The description adds little beyond the schema, merely repeating 'JWS or content-hash'. With 100% schema coverage, the description does not meaningfully enhance parameter understanding, so it earns the baseline score of 3.

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: 'Verify a previously issued signed alert (JWS or content-hash).' This uses a specific verb ('verify') and a specific resource ('previously issued signed alert'), and it distinguishes this tool from its siblings, which focus on market data, wallet lookups, and other alert-related tasks. No other sibling tool mentions verification of signed alerts.

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 its usage context: it is for verifying signed alerts, likely complementing pg_insider_alert_signed which presumably creates them. It mentions delegation to Trust Layer verify_signature, giving some context, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No alternative tools or exclusionary conditions are mentioned.

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