Verify

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

Annotations already establish read-only and idempotent behavior; the description adds useful behavioral detail by enumerating verified, unknown, and failed outcomes and by noting the check is stateless and CI-compatible. This exceeds the minimum while not going into every edge case (e.g., how `original` affects verification).

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?

Two sentences front-load the purpose and outcome contract, with no filler or repetition of annotation details. Every clause contributes (outcomes, digest matching, sessionlessness, CI equivalence).

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 output schema and annotations, the description does not need to document return values or safety, and it covers the core outcome contract well. However, with 0% schema coverage and an unexplained `original` parameter, the full calling contract is not quite complete.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate for the parameters, but it only implies `document` and `receipt` and never explains `original` at all. An agent cannot reliably distinguish the role of `original` from the schema alone.

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 opens with a specific verb and object (“Check a document against its receipt”) and then clarifies the three distinct outcomes, so an agent knows what the tool does. It does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools, so it misses the differentiator bar for a 5.

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 statement “Needs no session — the same check runs in CI via `ooxml-ledger verify`” gives concrete context for when the tool is appropriate and signals it can be used in automated pipelines. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full guidance.

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