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

No annotations are supplied, so the description bears the full disclosure burden. It does volunteer one genuinely behavioral fact — that the chain only grows on full human verification — plus a production environment marker, but it is silent on auth requirements, whether the call mutates state when verification is absent, failure modes, and idempotency.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no filler, which is good, but the compression goes too far — 'grows only on full human verification' reads as a fragment whose subject and consequence are ambiguous rather than as efficient phrasing.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description should tell an agent what actually happens on invocation and what comes back. It does neither: there is no statement of return value, side effects, or the relationship between feeding, the chain state, and verification.

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 optional 'session' parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), including format and header/fallback behavior, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, which matches the baseline 3 for complete schema coverage.

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?

It states a verb ('feed') and an object ('latest proof into the chain'), which is more than a restatement of the name, but the key terms 'proof' and 'chain' are never defined and the distinction from sibling tools such as submit_proof or edna.id.verify_resume is left entirely to inference.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no routing to an alternative sibling. The clause 'grows only on full human verification' implies a precondition but never says what an agent should do instead when verification is incomplete.

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