Verify (sovereign, offline)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses key behavioral traits: 'Pure crypto, no vault, no API key, no network' and 'always free.' This indicates no side effects and no external dependencies, though it does not specify return values or error conditions.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and every clause adds value. It is succinct without being under-specified.

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?

For a 3-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides essential context (offline, free) but misses return-value semantics or behavior for invalid signatures. It is sufficient for selection but not fully complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond the schema, merely referencing 'signed message' and 'known agent address' which are already evident from the schema.

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 function: 'Verify a signed message against a known agent address.' The title ('sovereign, offline') and context 'Pure crypto, no vault, no API key, no network' further distinguish it from sibling tools like ae_verify_action.

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 when to use the tool (offline, no network/API key required) and adds 'always free' as a cost signal. It does not name alternatives explicitly, but the use case is clear from the constraints stated.

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