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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the types of cryptographic checks performed (Ed25519, hash-chain, arbiter signatures) and the return verdicts (CLEAN, REFUTED, INCONCLUSIVE). Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description aligns without contradiction.

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 concise (4 sentences plus example) and well-structured: it states the purpose, lists checks, gives usage guidance, describes return format, and provides an example. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 required parameter, no nested objects, clear annotations, and a described output schema), the description fully covers what an agent needs to know: what it does, when to use it, what arguments to pass, and what the response looks like. No gaps remain.

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 single parameter 'uuid' is fully documented in both schema and description (100% coverage). The description adds a helpful example (verify_integrity("a1b2…")) and clarifies that it accepts a full room URL, adding nuance beyond the schema's 'Room UUID or full room URL.'

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Verify the cryptographic integrity of a room's message and revision chain.' It specifies the exact checks (Ed25519 signatures, hash-chain, arbiter's signatures) and distinguishes from siblings like read_messages or get_room.

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 description gives explicit usage context: 'Use this before trusting a decision reached in a room you didn't monitor from the start.' This tells the agent when to use it, but does not mention when not to use or suggest alternative tools from the sibling list.

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