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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses return categories, confidence score, and recommended action, and implies read-only behavior through 'verify/checks'. However, it does not explicitly state side effects, permissions, or failure modes, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 efficiently structured sentences: the first states the action and resource, the second outlines the return contract. No redundant content, and the example is embedded naturally.

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 tool with no output schema, the description adequately describes return categories, confidence score, and recommended action, plus the live signed evidence context. It lacks explicit error/edge-case handling, but the 'unverified' category covers many possible gaps.

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% for both parameters with clear descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds an example claim but does not substantially enrich parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, such as the symbol auto-detection detail.

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 a specific action (verify) against a specific resource (FeedOracle signed evidence), includes a concrete example, and defines distinct output categories (verified/partially_verified/unverified). This differentiates it from siblings like verify_signature or get_signed_fact by focusing on semantic claim verification rather than raw signature or fact lookup.

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 establishes a clear use case: verifying an agent's claim against live signed data. While it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the context is specific enough for an agent to infer when this tool is appropriate, though a mention of alternatives would be stronger.

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