Verify a registration's receipt

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

Adds context beyond the annotations: it states verifying never creates a key (a meaningful side-effect clarification given the sibling key/register tools), and explains the default trust root and the split-view capability tradeoff. Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/destructive, so this is supplementary value rather than essential disclosure.

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 dense sentences with no filler, and the default case is stated before the optional override. Package names and 'four-question answers' jargon cost a little readability but nothing is redundant.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must carry the return-value burden; 'return its four-question answers unaltered' hints at a structured verification result but never defines what those four answers are. For a verification tool whose output shape matters, that is a notable gap.

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% so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning the schema cannot: why knownAccumulator exists, where to get it, and what capability it unlocks (split-view answers) versus the server-key default. contentHash is not elaborated but is well documented in 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?

States a specific verb (verify) and resource (a sealed registration's receipt over a registered statement), and names the verifier used. It does not contrast itself with the sibling check_registration, so the agent must infer the distinction, but the core action is 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?

Gives conditional guidance: default is the server's own log key, and pass a knownAccumulator (sourced from fetch_accumulator) only when you need a root that can also answer split-view. It lacks explicit when-not rules or a comparison against check_registration, but the parameter choice is well motivated.

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