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

Annotations are all false, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it is free and unlimited, that it completes when the result carries valid and the artifact record, and frames it as an evidence instrument for human handoff. It also offers a self-verification alternative, adding behavioral context beyond the schema. It doesn't detail error behavior or side effects, but the output schema likely covers return structure, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 longer than minimal but every sentence earns its place: scope, cost, completion condition, exclusions, alternative routing, and self-verification path. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then layers important caveats. Slightly wordy, but efficient for the information density needed to prevent misuse.

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 tool with a full output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it verifies, when to use it, when not to, how to route alternatives, cost, completion behavior, and even a manual verification method. Nothing essential 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 schema already describes the id parameter as 'A cert_, stamp_, or anchor_ id.' with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description reiterates the same artifact types without adding new format details or constraints. It does add that the id must be one scvd.store issued, but that's about tool scope, not parameter semantics. No additional value over 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?

The description clearly states the tool verifies artifacts signed by scvd.store by id, naming specific artifact types (certificates, visit stamps, context anchors). It explicitly excludes other issuers and other services, distinguishing it from siblings like check_conformance. The verb 'verify' plus resource scope is precise and unambiguous.

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 provides explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, directly stating it is NOT for other x402 services or other issuers' artifacts, and directs those cases to check_conformance. It also notes it is free and unlimited, and mentions the completion condition, giving the agent clear context for invocation.

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