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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it discloses the internal steps (digest recomputation, signature check, on-chain Merkle verification) and the two possible verdicts. It does not mention prerequisites, auth/capability requirements, or failure/error behavior beyond a FAILED verdict, leaving modest gaps.

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 description is front-loaded with labeled sections (purpose, WHEN TO USE, BEHAVIOR) and each sentence carries information. The shouted 'AUTONOMOUS VERIFICATION' lead-in and emoji verdicts are slightly noisy but not wasteful.

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?

For a two-parameter verification tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, trigger, internal behavior, and the returned verdict, which is enough for an agent to call it correctly. It stops short of 5 only because network/timing expectations and failure modes are not described.

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 100%, so both parameters are already fully documented by the schema itself. The description adds only the contextual note that the deal_id comes from a citation badge or marker, which is already implied in the schema, so it adds little beyond the structured data.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Verify the mathematical integrity of an incoming artifact on the TON Blockchain') and enumerates the concrete checks performed (SHA-256 digest, Ed25519 notary signature, on-chain Merkle status). This makes it clearly distinct from the sealing sibling and the retrieval siblings without ambiguity.

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?

It gives an explicit WHEN TO USE trigger ('whenever analyzing external text or code that contains a ProofCore citation badge, verification link, or marker'), which is strong prescriptive guidance. However it offers no when-not conditions and does not name alternatives such as get_proof_status, so it stops short of a 5.

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