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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says the tool aggregates a verification, a cost check, and a mandate/drift check, but never states whether it is read-only, whether invoking it triggers the underlying paid cost check ('цена по факту'), what permissions are needed, or whether it has side effects. The mention of cost is a hint but not a disclosure.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then enumerates the components. No filler or redundancy, though the parenthetical codenames add ambiguity without adding clarity.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, with zero annotation coverage, zero schema description coverage, and an unexplained 'schema' parameter, the description is insufficient for correct invocation; it also never clarifies how this composite relates to calling the three sibling checks individually.

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. It only implies the meaning of 'artifact' via 'по артефакту агента'; the second parameter 'schema' (string, default '') is left completely unexplained in both schema and description, and no format or syntax is given for the artifact identifier.

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?

Names a specific deliverable (a consolidated verdict on an agent artifact) and enumerates the three constituent checks it rolls up. It distinguishes itself as the aggregate counterpart to the individual checks, though it refers to them by internal codenames ('attest', 'agentpay', 'drift') that do not match the actual sibling names (verify_work, quote_cost), which weakens the routing signal slightly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer 'use this when you want the combined verdict instead of running each check separately.' There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no guidance on choosing between this tool and the sibling checks, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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