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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool does not verify signatures, always returns a non-success withdrawal notice, and clarifies that hash comparison is not signature verification. This is fully transparent about its behavior.

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Two concise sentences, front-loaded with 'WITHDRAWN (2026-08-09).' Every sentence adds critical information: the withdrawal status, the non-functioning behavior, and an important conceptual warning. No wasted words.

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For a withdrawn tool, the description is complete: it states the withdrawal, what it returns, and a key misconception. The absence of an output schema is compensated by the explicit statement that it returns a non-success notice. Nothing else is needed.

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 covers all 2 parameters with descriptions, providing baseline 3. The description adds meaning by warning that hash comparison is not signature verification, which directly relates to the content_hash parameter and clarifies that even providing both parameters will not result in actual verification.

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 what the tool does: it performs no cryptographic signature verification and returns a non-success withdrawal notice. This is specific and distinguishes it from active sibling tools like verify_claim, which presumably does verify.

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 explicitly says the tool is withdrawn and performs no verification, making it clear when NOT to use it. However, it does not name an alternative tool for signature verification, so it lacks explicit alternative guidance.

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