Verify audit chain

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds substantial context beyond them: it enumerates the verified/not_evaluated/error outcomes and warns that not_evaluated must not be reported as verified. This is the key behavioral information an agent needs to interpret results, and it is absent from 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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the result-interpretation rules. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly takes on the burden of explaining return semantics, and it does so with the status/ok/entries_unchecked mapping. The only shortfall is the absence of routing guidance relative to sibling audit tools.

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% and both parameters are documented with examples in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about the 'from' participant URI or 'workspace' identifier, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource combination: 'Replay a workspace's prev-hash chain.' An agent can tell this is a chain-integrity verification operation. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the close sibling chap.audit.verify_receipt, which is the only gap.

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 (use this to verify chain integrity) and the description gives strong interpretive guidance for results, but it never states when to choose this over chap.audit.verify_receipt or chap.audit.read, nor any explicit exclusions or prerequisites.

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