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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description explains the trust model: a valid signature proves Agoreum made the claim and the document is unaltered, but not that the claim is true. It also states that the result names what to confirm on chain and that the chain is authoritative if they disagree.

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 core purpose and trust semantics are front-loaded and efficiently stated. The closing sentences about Base being a live network and USDC transfers being irreversible are less directly relevant to this read-only verification tool, though they reinforce why on-chain confirmation matters.

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?

Given the single nested parameter, read-only annotations, and no output schema, the description is complete enough to call the tool correctly. It explains what a valid result means, what the result names, and how chain state overrides the document if they disagree.

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 single "document" parameter is already well documented, including that the whole envelope must include the signature. The description adds context about the document types but no additional parameter-level syntax or validation details beyond 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 states a precise verb and resource: it verifies the signature on an Agoreum receipt or reputation attestation against the published key. That unique scope makes it distinct from the sibling query tools without needing to name them 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?

It gives clear usage context: "Use it on any receipt or attestation an agent hands you as proof of a settled order," and notes that no credential or relationship is needed. It does not name exclusions or alternatives, but the sibling set contains no competing verification tool.

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