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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds critical behavioral context: the tool returns raw source links and a commit hash, not a verification verdict, and the agent must perform the actual verification by reading the code. This goes beyond annotations and prevents misuse.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: purpose, return value, verification checklist, and a caution against blind trust. The most critical information is front-loaded, and the description is free of fluff or repetition.

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?

The tool is simple (no parameters, no output schema), but annotations cover safety. The description fully specifies the output (commit hash + source links), the exact verification steps, and the caveat that the agent must read the source itself. This is complete for successful invocation and correct use.

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?

With zero parameters, the schema trivially covers everything. The description correctly focuses on what the tool returns and how to interpret it, which is the only relevant semantic information. No parameter explanations are needed.

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 clearly states the tool verifies code integrity on Blueprint servers, returns a git commit hash and source links, and distinguishes it from siblings like verify_transaction by focusing on server code rather than transactions. The verb 'verify' plus the specific resource and output make the purpose unambiguous.

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 description explicitly tells the agent to read the source code to confirm specific conditions (no private keys logged, Memo Program present, generate_wallet local generation), and advises 'Don't trust — read the code yourself.' It establishes a clear use case and workflow, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions beyond what is implicit in the context of sibling tools.

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