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

Beyond the readOnly and idempotent annotations, the description adds useful traits: deterministic, evidence-bounded, and signed, plus an explicit cost of 0.003 USDC. These are meaningful behavioral signals, though 'evidence-bounded' could be more precise.

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 compact, with the purpose and key constraints front-loaded. Minor punctuation quirks aside, every clause adds information without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description omits crucial context: what the input object expects (the schema allows any additional properties), what 'evidence-bounded' means in practice, and whether the 0.003 USDC cost requires a transaction beforehand. The description is too abstract for agents to safely invoke.

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 tool declares zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter documentation is needed, and the description adds nothing that could be misread as parameter guidance.

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 states a clear goal—'separate claimed capabilities from independently evidenced successful demonstrations'—but it reads more like an outcome than a concrete tool action with a specific verb and resource. The title and sibling names hint at verification, yet the exact operational function remains ambiguous.

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?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives like capability_benchmark, capability_negotiation_preflight, or tool_capability_drift_monitor. There are no use conditions, exclusions, or comparisons, leaving the routing decision to the agent.

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