verify_bundle

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the [READ] tag restates this. The description adds the useful detail that verification covers three specific checks, but does not disclose what happens on failure (exception vs. result field) or whether it's cheap to re-run. Modest added value given the annotation already covers the safety profile.

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?

Front-loaded with [READ] and the core action, then the specific checks, then the single arg. No wasted sentences. The literal 'Args:' block is slightly redundant with structured schema but does not bloat the entry.

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?

One-parameter read tool with an annotation already covering its safety profile, so the bar is moderate. It covers what is verified and what input it needs, but leaves out failure semantics and linkage to sign_bundle/verify_source_chain in the sibling set. Adequate but not thorough.

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% for the single parameter, so the description carries the burden. It correctly identifies bundle_path's meaning as the path to a bundle .json produced by generate_evidence_bundle, giving an agent the provenance expectation needed to supply a valid value.

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 resource (a sealed evidence bundle) and enumerates the exact integrity aspects checked: chain integrity, seal head, signature. This distinguishes it from sign_bundle (which produces a seal) and verify_source_chain (which targets a source, not a bundle).

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 mention that the bundle comes from generate_evidence_bundle establishes the operating context and implicitly answers when to use it: after sealing. However, it does not explicitly state alternatives (e.g., verify_source_chain) or conditions under which verification should be skipped.

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