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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does it well: it discloses determinism, the three outcome states (GREEN/RED/UNVERIFIED), the meaning of RED as 'tampered', and a rate limit (3 free calls/day then entitlement 'ledger'). It omits explicit auth/permission requirements beyond the entitlement note, but this is strong disclosure overall.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: purpose, mechanism, outcome states, and quota all land in a few tight sentences. The bracketed product/entitlement prefix and repeated entitlement mention are slightly redundant but every sentence earns its place.

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 no-annotation, no-output-schema tool this is nearly complete: it explains the mechanism, the return states (standing in for the missing output schema), and the quota. Only explicit auth/permission prerequisites and the structure of the nested 'inputs' payload remain unaddressed.

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% and both parameters are documented in the schema, including the UNVERIFIED-on-omission behavior. The description matches the schema rather than adding meaningful new parameter semantics, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (recompute-audit) and resource (agent work claim), then nails the mechanism: re-derive a deterministic SHA-256 digest from claimed inputs and check it against the claimed digest. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like agents_contradiction, drift_certificate, or agents_reputation.

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 verification intent ('replay, not opinion') implies when to reach for it, but there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not guidance and no named alternative among the many sibling audit/verify tools. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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