guild_envelope_verify

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It usefully discloses trust assumptions and non-guarantees (e.g., message truth and recipient acceptance), though it does not fully describe expiry handling or error behavior.

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 very concise, using two short sentences to convey purpose, trust model, and verification semantics. There is no unnecessary verbosity or redundant content.

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 gives important context about trust and the limits of verification, but lacks details about the input envelope structure and the output/return format. Given the minimal schema, this leaves some gaps for an agent trying to invoke the tool correctly.

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 only parameter 'envelope' has no schema description, and the tool description merely refers to a 'machine envelope' without detailing expected properties or structure. Since schema coverage is effectively zero, the description does not sufficiently compensate.

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: verifying a Guild-issued machine envelope and its expiry. It uses a specific verb and resource, and is distinct enough from sibling verification tools by focusing on envelopes.

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 that no key, payment, or network trust is required and clarifies what a valid result does and does not mean. However, it does not explicitly compare this tool to sibling verification tools or state when to prefer it over alternatives.

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