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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds genuine value by scoping the guarantee ('verifies a supplied hash and does not independently validate the underlying blockchain data'), heading off agent over-trust in the result.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action. The second sentence largely repeats the sourcing detail from the first (_proof.dataHash), which is mild redundancy, but nothing is bloated.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the single parameter is fully documented. The scope limitation and usage trigger round out what an agent needs; only a note on failure behavior would add more.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by telling the agent where the argument comes from (the _proof field of any ChainRay response) and that the hash is provenance-related, not arbitrary input.

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?

States a specific verb (verify) and resource (data integrity / a supplied hash), plus the exact provenance of the input (_proof.dataHash from a ChainRay response). No sibling tool overlaps this function, so it is unambiguous without needing sibling differentiation.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition: 'Use after receiving a ChainRay response with _proof.dataHash.' There is no competing alternative tool to name or exclude, so the missing exclusions cost little, but the guidance is purely a sequencing hint rather than a full when/when-not treatment.

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