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

The description proactively discloses key behavioral aspects: it checks signature, temporal validity, and optional hash. The note 'Reference-grade implementation' suggests non-production-status. However, it does not describe failure behaviors, return values, or side effects. With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does a solid job, but leaves some gaps.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. It avoids wordiness, but the final two sentences introduce jargon ('Wire format normative', 'Layer B') that add some ambiguity. Overall, it is compact and to the point.

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 clearly explains the verification checks, but with no output schema, it does not indicate what the tool returns. It also lacks guidance on typical use cases or error handling. The context is sufficient for a simple verify tool, but the absence of return-value information leaves a gap in completeness.

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% with clear descriptions for both parameters (manifest and observed_inputs). The tool description's mention of 'observed inputs hash' aligns with the schema but adds little beyond it. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Verify') and resource ('Pre-Action Attestation Manifest'). It enumerates concrete verification actions (Ed25519 signature, temporal validity, optional observed inputs hash), which distinguishes it from sibling attestation verifiers for other types. The identifier 'C15: hive-passport' adds specificity.

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?

Usage is implied for verifying passport manifests, but the description does not explicitly state when to use it versus other attestation verify tools (e.g., verify_absence, verify_custody). It also does not mention alternatives or exclusions, only implementation notes ('Reference-grade', 'Layer B') which hint at a reference/testing context but are not clear guidelines.

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