verify_chain

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the return value ('OK or first sequence number') but does not mention side effects, potential errors, or whether the operation is read-only. Moderate transparency.

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?

Two sentences, each adding value: first states purpose, second states return value. No wasted words. Front-loaded effectively.

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 simple verification tool with 2 parameters and an output schema, the description covers purpose and return value but lacks parameter explanations and usage context. It is minimally 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 0%, and the description adds no information about the parameters (tenant_id, api_key). It does not explain their purpose or format, leaving the agent with only the schema's titles.

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 'Re-verify', the resource 'log chain', and the scope 'for a tenant'. It also specifies the return value, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'log' or 'search'.

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 checking chain integrity but does not explicitly state when to use or when not, nor does it compare to alternatives. It's adequate for a tool with no similar siblings.

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