verify_envelope

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds real context beyond them: constant-time comparison, the attestation field being zeroed, the server being stateless ('stores nothing'), and crucially that REJECT is a result rather than an error. It does not discuss rate limits or failure modes beyond the MAC, but the added value is substantial.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the core operation and zero filler. The result-semantics clarification is placed last, which is sensible, though the jargon load ('companion draft sec. 4', 'AE-128') assumes reader familiarity.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the verification semantics and result interpretation adequately. The only real gap is the undocumented `now` parameter, which an agent cannot infer from either the schema or the description.

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%, so the description carries the full burden. It explains organ_key well ('shared test/deployment key', stateless server) and touches check_lease ('optional lease check'), but the `now` parameter is never mentioned and envelope_hex is only implied by '128-byte frame'. Partial compensation for a four-parameter tool.

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 and resource ('Full AE-128 verification') and names the concrete mechanism (HMAC-SHA256 over the 128-byte frame), so an agent can distinguish it from parse_envelope. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with the siblings, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiated.

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 by the mechanism description and the 'optional lease check' phrasing, which hints at when check_lease applies. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or routing to parse_envelope or published_vector.

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