Live status of a KeyHalve-sealed document by id: active, revoked (with reason/time), or outside its validity window. Lighter than keyhalve_verify — status only, no integrity or rail checks. Use for "is this still good right now?"
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| document_id | Yes | The document id, e.g. vp_…, kh_…, cb_…. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description's additional 'status only, no integrity or rail checks' provides useful context about what the tool does NOT do, going beyond the annotations. It also clarifies that it reports 'outside its validity window' as a status. Non contradicting and adds value, though it doesn't detail response format or error behavior.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core function, and every clause is informative. It includes the status outcomes, the sibling comparison, and usage guidance without redundancy.
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?
With no output schema, the description partially covers return values by listing possible statuses (active, revoked, outside validity window) and even includes reason/time for revoked. For a simple status tool with one param, this is reasonably complete, though it doesn't specify exact response structure or error handling.
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% for the single parameter, and the schema already explains the document_id format with examples. The description just says 'by id' without adding further semantic detail, so it doesn't elevate beyond the baseline.
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 starts with 'Live status of a KeyHalve-sealed document by id' which specifies the verb (status check), resource (document), and scope (live status with three outcome categories). It explicitly contrasts with keyhalve_verify, noting this tool is 'lighter' and does not perform integrity or rail checks, clearly distinguishing it from siblings.
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 directly states when to use this tool: 'Use for "is this still good right now?"' and differentiates from keyhalve_verify by saying it's status-only vs. full verification. This gives explicit usage context and an implicit alternative, which is strong guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: explain provides plain-language context, status gives a quick live check, and verify performs full cryptographic verification. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
All tools follow a consistent pattern with the 'keyhalve_' prefix and descriptive verbs (explain, status, verify). The use of 'status' as a noun is slightly atypical but doesn't break the convention.
Three tools is perfectly scoped for a verification-focused server. Each tool earns its place, covering explanation, quick status, and full verification without redundancy.
The domain is document verification, and the three tools cover the entire user journey: understanding the verdict (explain), checking current status (status), and performing a full verified check (verify). No management operations are expected for this read-only verification service.
