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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It states that the operation is cryptographic verification and identifies the security question, but it does not explain success/failure semantics, return values, prerequisites, rate limits, or side effects.

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?

The definition is one dense sentence with the core action and scope front-loaded. Every phrase contributes to identifying the token type, the verification action, and the security outcome.

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 tool is relatively simple with one required parameter, but there is no output schema and no annotations. The description explains what is checked but not what the verification returns or how an agent should interpret success versus failure, leaving a meaningful gap for invocation.

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%, and the single parameter is only a required `proof_token` string. The description adds useful meaning by identifying valid token prefixes and what the token represents, but it does not explain token format, source, or validation details beyond the prefixes.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: "Cryptographically verifies" an "upstream provenance token," and narrows the target to `sup1_*` or `fp_ao029_stolen_*` tokens. It clearly states the security question being answered, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the many sibling `verify_*` tools.

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 implied by the security-check purpose: use it when you have a relevant upstream provenance token and need to determine whether a gateway routed traffic through a stolen honeypot credential. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative among the sibling verification tools.

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