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

Annotations already reveal that the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds that it verifies signature and validity window, but it does not disclose what happens with an invalid or expired token, such as returning false versus throwing an error. This matters because there is no output schema.

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?

One concise sentence with no filler. The core operation and token types are front-loaded, making the purpose immediately clear.

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?

The definition is mostly adequate for a simple read-only verifier, but because there is no output schema, the missing description of the return value or error behavior is a notable gap. Token provenance and expected response format are also not addressed.

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 only defines 'token' as a string with length constraints. The description adds meaningful semantics by identifying it as a NAIF Trust Passport or Delegation Preflight token, which is sufficient context for the single parameter.

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 a clear object: 'the signature and validity window of a NAIF Trust Passport or Delegation Preflight token.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like delegation_preflight or get_agent_trust_passport, which generate or retrieve tokens rather than verifying them.

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 implies the tool is for validating an existing token, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or comparison with sibling tools are provided.

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