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

Annotations already declare the safe-read profile (readOnlyHint, non-destructive, open-world), so the bar is low. The description still adds real context by disclosing that no authorization is needed ('Anyone can run this') and that it returns chain height and tip. It stops short of describing cost, rate limits, or what a failed verification looks like.

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, zero waste, with the core action and its outputs front-loaded before the permission note.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential gap by stating what is returned (height and tip). It could say a little more about what 're-verify' checks or how failure is surfaced, but nothing critical is 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and it does not need to.

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 ('re-verify sebbi.pro's whole chain') and even names the return values ('height and tip'). The scope is unambiguous and distinct from every sibling, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with a related sibling such as sebbi_overview.

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?

'Anyone can run this' implies the tool is freely callable, but it gives no conditions for when to reach for it over siblings like sebbi_overview or sebbi_notary_receipt, and no exclusions. Usage is only loosely implied.

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