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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: free and unlimited, completes when the result carries valid true/false plus the artifact record, and is designed as an evidence instrument for human handoff. No contradiction with annotations.

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 slightly longer than minimal but every sentence earns its place: purpose, cost, completion behavior, exclusions, alternative routing, and self-verification path. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and stays well organized.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and strong annotations, the description covers all needed context: what the tool verifies, what it does not verify, how results complete, and how to verify without the tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single id parameter and its allowed prefixes. The description adds context that the id must have been issued by scvd.store, but does not add substantial parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: verify anything scvd.store has signed, including certificates, visit stamps, and context anchors, by id. It clearly distinguishes itself from check_conformance by saying it is NOT a conformance checker and NOT for artifacts another store signed.

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?

Explicitly says when to use this tool vs alternatives: artifacts from another issuer go to check_conformance, and self-verification via ed25519 is offered as an alternative. This gives the agent concrete routing guidance and exclusions.

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