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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: payment amount and basis, dual-observer mechanism, tier outcomes (CERTIFIED vs WITNESSED), permanent storage on Arweave, NFT minting, polling duration, timeout behavior, durable claim_url, and refund policy. This is exemplary transparency for a state-changing, paid operation.

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 long but every sentence adds essential information (purpose, cost, verification process, outcomes, storage, polling, failure handling). It fronts the core purpose and then covers operational details in a logical sequence. Slight compactness could be achieved, but nothing is redundant, justifying a strong score.

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 paid, asynchronous tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains what will be returned (claim_url, tiers, agreement percent, diff map), how to handle timeouts, refund conditions, and the durability of the claim URL. An agent can call this tool and handle every possible outcome without additional documentation.

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 coverage is 100% — both `url` and `mode` have detailed descriptions in the schema (including the refusal of private addresses and the exact pricing for modes). The tool description repeats these details without adding new semantic info, so it adds no value beyond the schema, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 first sentence states a specific action — 'Permanently certify what a public web page serves right now' — with a clear resource (URL) and a concrete outcome (certification). It immediately distinguishes this from verification by describing the capture process and resulting certificate tiers, making the tool's role 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 gives detailed execution context (payment, modes, polling, timeout) but never explicitly states when to use this tool versus the sibling `verify_certificate`. Usage is implied by the capture-and-certify purpose, yet no direct comparison or exclusion is provided, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It excels: it explains the internal process (re-downloading, recomputing SHA-256, comparing against manifest and on-chain record), the output format (verdict with per-check results), and, critically, the cost implications—specifically that a false verdict is still charged while malformed/unknown IDs and gateway outages are not. This comprehensive disclosure leaves no ambiguity about side effects or edge cases.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose and cost. Every sentence contributes—parameter formats, process steps, output verdict, and billing nuances. There is no redundancy or fluff; it is information-dense yet clear. This is exemplary conciseness.

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 tool has only one parameter and no output schema, the description fully compensates by explicitly describing the return value (the verdict and its sub-fields) and the charging rules. It also covers invalid-input handling, making the tool's behavior predictable. The description is complete for an agent to correctly invoke and interpret results.

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 already provides a high-level description of the 'id' parameter with 100% coverage. The description adds substantial value by detailing the exact formats expected: ERC-721 token id (digits), Arweave manifest tx id (43 chars), and exhibit402 job id (uuid). This goes beyond the schema, so the description meaningfully augments parameter understanding, warranting a 4.

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 verb (verify) and the resource (exhibit402 certificate), and specifies it is a re-verification. It distinguishes from the sibling 'certify_url' by focusing on verification rather than creation, though it does not name the sibling. The description also enumerates accepted identifier types, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 provides strong context: it tells the agent to use this tool to re-verify existing certificates and even lists accepted identifier formats. However, it does not explicitly state when *not* to use it or mention the alternative 'certify_url' for creation, leaving that inference to the agent. This earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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