verify_certificate

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 returns score, tier, hashes, Bitcoin anchor, and ledger status, but fails to mention whether it is read-only, has side effects, or any access constraints.

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 relatively concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core action and result. The colon and list format is somewhat verbose but efficient.

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 simple input (one required parameter) and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and output fields. However, it lacks details on output formatting, error conditions, or prerequisites.

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 has one parameter (certificate_id) with 0% description coverage. The description does not elaborate on the parameter beyond the schema title 'Certificate Id', providing no additional semantic guidance for a required input.

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 'Verify', the resource 'proof of authorship by certificate id', and lists returned fields (score, tier, hashes, Bitcoin anchor, ledger status). It distinguishes itself from siblings 'certify_creation' (creation) and 'get_agent_passport' (passport retrieval).

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 explicitly states when to use: 'to confirm a creation was really timestamped and that it existed first.' It provides clear context but does not mention when not to use or alternative tools for other scenarios.

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