Verify endpoint evidence (free)

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

The annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a valuable caveat that signature/inclusion validity does not prove observation truth or endpoint safety, which helps set expectations beyond the annotations.

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 brief and front-loaded, with no filler. It could be slightly tighter by removing 'FREE' since the title already states free, but overall it is 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?

While an output schema exists, the description does not explain what the response contains, possible error conditions, or how the bundle and expected values interact. Given the nested object parameter and verification context, more guidance is needed for complete usage.

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 0%, and the description only loosely references 'endpoint and audience'. It does not explain the 'bundle' parameter, the meaning of null defaults for expected_audience and expected_endpoint, or expected formats, leaving significant ambiguity.

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 identifies the action ('Check') and the resource ('Guild-issued evidence bundle'), including historical issuers. It is sufficiently specific to distinguish from general-purpose tools, though it could more explicitly contrast with sibling verification tools.

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 advises supplying endpoint and audience and mentions using the offline standalone verifier for independent verification. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over sibling verification tools like guild_verify or guild_envelope_verify.

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