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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and exceeds it: it discloses that the server returns raw signed bytes and a signature, deliberately does not verify them, explains the meaning of null proof and handleStillResolvesToSigner, clarifies the limits of what a verified signature proves, and states it only reads and never spends. This is exemplary behavioral disclosure.

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 long but every sentence earns its place, covering verification procedure, edge-case semantics, and safety. It front-loads the core purpose before diving into details. It could be tightened slightly, but there is no waste.

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 that an output schema exists, the description wisely focuses on what structured data cannot convey: how to verify the signature, what null proof means, what handleStillResolvesToSigner false means, and the read-only guarantee. Nothing an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3: both postId and commentId already have descriptions in the schema. The tool description only reiterates the one-of constraint and references weir_search for the postId format, adding no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 opens with a specific, distinctive purpose: identifying who signed a post or comment on weir.social, framed as 'checkable evidence rather than as our word for it.' This clearly separates it from sibling tools like weir_read or weir_search, which retrieve content, whereas this tool returns cryptographic proof of authorship.

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 clear context for when to use the tool ('Who signed... as checkable evidence') and explicit operational guidance ('Give exactly one of postId or commentId'). It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when NOT to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to recognize the right scenario.

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