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

Annotations cover the read-only and open-world profile, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real context: it discloses that the response is a signed check and enumerates the possible status values (witnessed, changed_recently, hash_mismatch, not_witnessed, sanctions_listed, not_listed). It does not mention auth requirements, rate limits, or what 'anchored record' freshness means.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the operation and supported target types, then the return shape. The status enum parenthetical is long but earns its place because there is no output schema; nothing is filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by naming the statuses and the fact/diff payload. For a 6-parameter read-only verification tool this is nearly complete; only auth/access expectations and the relationship to the record_* tools are missing.

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 67%, and the description compensates by mapping the target categories to the type enum and explaining the intent of the hash parameters ('the hash you are about to install'), which the schema alone frames only as sha256/integrity. It adds nothing for as_of or version, which the schema already documents.

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 ('Check') and enumerates the exact resource types (MCP server, npm/PyPI package, MCP endpoint URL, TON address) plus the reference point ('against the anchored record'). An agent immediately knows this is a verification tool rather than a lookup, though it never names its record_* siblings to draw the line explicitly.

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 parenthetical 'optionally with the hash you are about to install' implies the pre-install verification use case, and 'Check before you trust' frames intent. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no statement of how this differs from record_get or record_search, and no prerequisite guidance.

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