Independently verify a specific evidence record in a vacation rental property's trust chain. Confirms the evidence has been independently verified and is tamper-proof. Pass lilo_code (e.g. PROP-6408) and envelope_hash of the evidence record to verify.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lilo_code | Yes | Property lilo code (e.g. PROP-6408) | |
| envelope_hash | Yes | Hash of the evidence envelope to verify |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating that the tool 'confirms the evidence has been independently verified and is tamper-proof,' which goes beyond the safety profile and clarifies the verification outcome.
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 action, and includes invocation details without any filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool.
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 simple read-only tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, what inputs are needed, and what the confirmation signifies, giving an agent everything required to invoke it correctly.
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%, and the description adds a concrete example for lilo_code ('PROP-6408') and clarifies that envelope_hash refers to the evidence record. This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare field descriptions.
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 action ('Independently verify a specific evidence record') and the resource ('vacation rental property's trust chain'). It conveys a specific scope and adds the confirmation that evidence is 'tamper-proof,' which distinguishes it somewhat from siblings, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools.
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 clear invocation instructions by telling the agent to pass lilo_code and envelope_hash, but it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus closely related siblings such as verify_vacation_rental_evidence_record or query_vacation_rental_evidence_chain. Usage context is implied rather than explicitly stated.
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.
