Verify action (vault-anchored)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the auth requirement (vault-issued API key) and the anchoring context (vault-held record), but does not mention return values, failure modes, or side effects. For a verify tool, the lack of output description is a gap.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, and includes a necessary prerequisite. No filler 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?

Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description provides the essential purpose and auth context but does not explain expected returns or how it fits with sibling tools. This is adequate but not complete for a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The parameter descriptions in the schema (e.g., '0x-prefixed 65-byte signature') are specific. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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' and the resource 'a signed action against the vault-held record for an agent', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like ae_verify_sovereign. The title adds 'vault-anchored', reinforcing the specific scope.

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 implies usage for vault-anchored verification but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like ae_verify_sovereign. It mentions a prerequisite (vault-issued API key) but does not contrast with sibling tools or state exclusions.

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