agent-verification-api

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explicitly discloses that the tool performs a real .well-known/agent-card.json fetch and a real MCP initialize handshake, and it enumerates all possible return statuses with an explanatory parenthetical for one edge case. This gives an agent a transparent view of the tool's actions and outcomes.

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 a single dense paragraph, front-loaded with the core purpose and packed with specific details about the process and return values. While it is information-dense, it remains efficient with no redundant clauses; a minor structural improvement would be splitting into clearer sentences.

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 tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description lists all possible return statuses, which is essential in the absence of an output schema. However, it omits semantics for two parameters and does not mention potential side effects or prerequisites, leaving some gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for 'domain' (the domain under verification) and 'agent_endpoint_url' (optional target for the handshake), but it does not explain 'entity_name' or 'claimed_agent_name'. This partial coverage leaves two parameters semantically undocumented.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Confirms') and a clear resource ('an AI agent/service is who it claims to be'), then details the multi-step verification process. This unambiguously defines the tool's core purpose and leaves no ambiguity about what it does.

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 first sentence states the direct use case: verifying an AI agent's identity. This provides clear context for when to invoke the tool. Since no sibling tools are listed, there is no need for explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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