DocVerdict

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the types of comparisons performed (byte identity, derivation, page/metadata/signature changes) and explicitly states what it does not do (doesn't decide correctness). No contradictions with annotations (none provided).

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?

Two sentences, no unnecessary words, front-loaded with key information. Every sentence earns its place: first sentence states what it does, second clarifies a limitation.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is fairly complete. It explains the scope of comparison (pages, metadata, signatures). Could mention that output is a report object, but absence of output schema reduces need. Adequate for an AI to understand tool behavior.

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 parameters are already documented. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema (e.g., 'for the report header' is already in schema). It does mention comparison types but not parameter-specific details. 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 clearly states it compares two PDFs on byte identity, derivation, and changes (pages, metadata, signature events). It uses specific verbs ('compare', 'reports') and resource ('PDFs'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like verify_pdf, which likely validate structure/authenticity.

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 explains what the tool compares and explicitly states it does not decide which file is correct ('it does not decide which file is the right one'), guiding the agent on limitations. While it does not explicitly mention when to use vs alternatives, the context is sufficient for an AI to infer appropriate use.

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 full burden. It discloses that the tool provides classifications only and that mismatches are evidence to weigh, not a conclusion. This warns against overinterpretation. However, it does not mention any access restrictions, file size limits, or error handling, which would further enhance transparency.

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?

A single compact sentence delivers the core purpose, scope, and output nature with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys all necessary information.

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 two-parameter tool without an output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and the nature of its output. It mentions the file format (.eml) and the type of analysis. However, it could be improved by noting that the file must be a valid .eml file and that the tool does not make final judgments.

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?

Both parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), and the tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. The description mentions 'filename, for the report header' which aligns with the schema, but does not provide new semantics.

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 specifies a clear verb 'Check', a specific resource type (one email saved as .eml), and lists the exact aspects checked (sender alignment, authentication results, delivery route). It also clarifies the output is classifications only, distinguishing it from sibling tools that verify PDFs and 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 implies usage when verifying an .eml file by stating what it does, but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or alternatives beyond the sibling context. The user must infer from sibling names that other tools handle different file types.

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 provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses output format (findings JSON and plain-language report) and explicitly states it never determines fraud, authenticity, or legal validity, setting clear 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with core purpose, no fluff. Each sentence adds value: first lists checks, second clarifies output and limitations.

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?

No output schema, but description explains return format and evidence classification. Missing details on error handling or file size limits, but adequate for a single-purpose verification tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are already described well in schema. Description adds minimal context (filename for report header) but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond schema.

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?

Description clearly states the tool checks digital signature status, post-signing content additions, and metadata. It differentiates from siblings (compare_pdfs, verify_email, verify_photo) by focusing on a single PDF's integrity and metadata.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it implies it's for single PDF verification, it does not contrast with compare_pdfs or other verification tools.

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 full burden. It includes a key caveat that 'observations suggest, never prove', which is helpful, but does not explicitly declare whether the tool is read-only or mention any other behavioral traits such as permissions, destructive actions, or rate limits.

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 extremely concise with two sentences. The first sentence immediately states the tool's purpose and supported formats, and the second provides a crucial caveat. No unnecessary words.

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 tool's complexity (photo authentication) and the absence of an output schema, the description covers what it checks and the suggestive nature of results. However, it does not describe the structure of the output (e.g., report format, metadata fields), which would help the agent understand the response. The sibling tools suggest a pattern, but the description itself leaves 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 input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters. The description adds value beyond the schema by specifying the accepted file formats (JPG, PNG, HEIC), which is not present in the schema descriptions, and clarifies that filename is for the report header.

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 photo, listing specific aspects (camera metadata, capture time, edit traces, timestamp consistency), and the format restriction (JPG, PNG, HEIC) distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle other file types.

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 implicitly indicates when to use this tool (for photo verification) and the sibling tools cover different file types, but it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives.

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