DocVerdict

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It provides meaningful context: the comparison is byte-based, it reports relationships rather than judgments, and it examines specific aspects (pages, metadata, signature events). This goes beyond the schema, though it doesn't explicitly mention read-only behavior or failure modes.

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 with no filler. The first sentence immediately states the action and resource, and the second sentence clarifies the output scope. Every word earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description should clarify what the tool returns. It states it reports the relationship and lists the comparison dimensions, which gives a fair understanding. It lacks a detailed output format, but for a moderately complex tool, this is reasonably complete.

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%, so each parameter (file_a_base64, file_b_base64, filename_a, filename_b) is adequately documented. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but none is needed; baseline 3 applies.

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 verb 'Compare' with the resource 'two PDFs' and specifies the comparison dimensions: byte identity, derivation, and changes in pages, metadata, and signature events. It also explicitly distinguishes from sibling verify tools by noting it does not decide which file is correct, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 used for comparing two PDFs, and the note about not deciding the right file sets expectations. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like verify_pdf, nor does it provide 'when not to use' guidance. No alternatives are named.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool produces classifications only, not conclusions, and specifies the exact areas examined. This gives useful context about how to interpret results, though it does not mention read-only behavior or limitations like file size.

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: the first states the purpose and scope, the second adds an interpretive nuance. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary details.

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 relatively simple tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the core function and the nature of results. It lacks explicit statements about permissions or read-only status, but the tool's simplicity and the schema's completeness make this a minor gap.

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 input schema fully describes both parameters (filename, file_base64) with 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific details, so it provides no value beyond the schema 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 clearly states the tool checks one .eml email for sender alignment, authentication results, and delivery route. The verb 'Check' plus the specific resource '.eml' distinguishes it from sibling tools that verify PDFs or photos.

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 clearly implies this tool is for .eml email files, setting it apart from the sibling PDF/photo tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, only provides context and interpretive guidance ('Classifications only').

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It transparently states the return format (findings JSON and plain-language report) and explicitly clarifies that the tool classifies evidence but never determines fraud, authenticity, or legal validity, which sets appropriate expectations.

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 three focused sentences, leading with the primary action and resource, then the specific checks, then the output and limitations. It is concise, well-structured, and contains no filler or 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?

The description adequately covers the tool's behavior, inputs scope, output type, and limitations despite the absence of an output schema. It explains what findings are returned and what the tool does not do, which is sufficient for a single-PDF verification tool. Minor additional context about error handling or file size limits could improve completeness, but it is not essential.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters, so the description adds little beyond the schema. The filename parameter's purpose is defined in the schema as 'for the report header,' and the description does not add extra semantic detail beyond what is already documented.

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 checks a single PDF for digital signature status, post-signing content additions, and metadata observations. It distinctly differentiates from sibling tools like compare_pdfs by emphasizing 'one PDF' and specific verification tasks.

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 phrase 'Check one PDF' implies the tool is for single-file verification, which contrasts with compare_pdfs, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. Alternatives are not named, so the usage context is inferred rather than stated.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait ('Observations suggest, never prove') and lists analysis aspects, but does not explicitly state that it is read-only, describe the output format, or mention potential errors or limitations.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and formats. It is free of filler and every word contributes to understanding.

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 only 2 fully documented parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description communicates purpose and a key limitation but omits expected output format and operational details. It is adequate for a simple tool but has 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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds no new parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema states, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'Check' with a clear resource ('one photo') and explicitly lists supported formats (JPG, PNG, HEIC). It distinguishes the tool from siblings (compare_pdfs, verify_email, verify_pdf) by focusing on image files.

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 use for photo analysis but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It provides no exclusions or direct comparisons to siblings, leaving usage guidance to inference from the tool name and file types.

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