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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the recomputation semantics and a concrete rate limit ('3 free calls/day, then entitlement ledger'), which is genuine behavioral context. But it omits mutation/read profile, failure behavior, and what the result of enforcement looks like.

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?

Front-loads the product/entitlement tag, then the purpose, then the rate limit in a compact three-sentence form with no filler. The entitlement appears twice (bracketed tag and 'then entitlement ledger'), a minor redundancy but the structure remains tight.

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 verification tool with nested input objects, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose and entitlement but leaves notable gaps: what GREEN means, what enforcement returns, and how it relates to sibling SLA tools. Adequate but not complete for the tool's complexity.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters, making 3 the baseline. The description ties claimed_digest to the verification condition, adding mild meaning, but does not explain the 'inputs' payload structure or the obligation label's role beyond the schema text.

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 (enforce) and resource (SLA/obligation) plus the mechanism: recomputation where the obligation is met only if the work verifies GREEN against its claimed digest. This clearly distinguishes it from a generic SLA tool, though it never names siblings like sla_register or sla_report to route the agent explicitly.

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 condition ('GREEN against its claimed digest') implies when this tool applies, and the entitlement/rate-limit note hints at cost constraints. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs sla_register/sla_report, no prerequisites, and no statement of what to do when work fails verification.

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