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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description correctly aligns with these. It adds context about the governance model (human-approval gate, Ed25519 signatures) and emphasizes that the tool is public and intended for counterparties, which is beyond the annotation's scope. No contradiction.

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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the primary use case. It includes a second sentence about public access, which is useful but could be seen as slightly tangential. The structure is effective, though it could be tightened by trimming the exclamation.

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 read-only verification tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description is largely complete. It explains the purpose, the context (pre-transaction), and the security model. It doesn't mention error handling or what happens if the verification fails, but that is often not necessary given the simplicity and annotations.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds context about the receipt's `canonical` and `signature_ed25519` fields being used together for verification, but it doesn't add much beyond what the schema descriptions state. The description implies the semantics but the schema already covers it.

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 specific verb ('check'/'verify') and a clear resource (counterparty agent governance). It distinguishes this tool from siblings by focusing on governance verification and receipt checking, which is unique among the listed siblings that involve tickets, tenants, and mesh lanes.

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 states when to use: 'Before transacting with another agent'. It also indicates the verification of receipts if one was handed over. No explicit alternatives are named, but the context is clear and it implies this is the pre-transaction check, setting it apart from other actions like onboarding or creating tickets.

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