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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does add real behavioural information — the four validation layers and the fact that it emits an 'attest' verdict — but says nothing about read-only vs mutating behaviour, required permissions, side effects, or cost/latency for what is clearly a gate-keeping check.

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 short sentences, purpose front-loaded, with the parenthetical grouping the validation layers efficiently. Slightly dense label soup ('пустота', 'полномочия') but 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?

The output schema covers the return verdict, so that need not be restated, but with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage the definition still leaves an agent without the permission/format/alternative details needed to invoke it confidently.

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% for both parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. The mention of 'схема' as a validation layer is only an indirect hint that the optional `schema` parameter exists; the required `artifact` parameter and its expected format (text? JSON? path?) are never explained.

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 verb (проверить / verify) and resource (артефакт агента) and enumerates the four checked layers (схема, пустота, provenance, полномочия), which is more than a tautology. It does not, however, contrast itself with likely-overlapping siblings such as trust_report or check_skill.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance appears anywhere. An agent has to guess whether an artifact should be routed here or to trust_report/check_skill.

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