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

The description explicitly states what the tool does NOT do (charge, settle, mutate storage, certify external facts), which goes beyond the readOnly and idempotent annotations. It also mentions the 'non-confidential' nature, providing additional context about data handling. However, it does not describe failure modes or return 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 concise, consisting of two short sentences, with no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the core action and key exclusions.

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 complexity of the schema (oneOf, nested objects, enums) and the lack of any parameter descriptions in the schema, the tool description is insufficient. It does not explain the required inputs, the meaning of 'require_chain' or 'require_signature', nor what the output contains. The description is too sparse to be complete for complex usage.

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 schema provides no descriptions for parameters, and the tool description does not explain the meaning or usage of 'bundle', 'public_keys', 'require_chain', or 'require_signature'. The description only mentions the bundle implicitly, leaving all parameters under-specified for an AI agent.

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's purpose: verifying a non-confidential evidence bundle for hash integrity, monotonic ordering, signatures, and chain integrity. It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., build_bundle_draft, verify_signed_attestation) by focusing on verification of bundle properties.

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 does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks guidance on when verification is appropriate, what scenarios require it, or when other tools like verify_signed_attestation might be preferred. No prerequisites or contextual triggers are given.

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