verify_card

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and meets it: it discloses the security model (a self-carried key is not trusted), the pinned key source, and the three verdicts including the deliberately distinct UNCHECKABLE state. It also explains why 'could not check' is not 'forged'.

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 information-dense but every sentence earns its place: procedure, security caveat, verdict semantics, accepted inputs, and explicit boundary. Key details are front-loaded before the edge-case nuance.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description states all three verdicts and the reason behavior, plus accepted input forms and failure semantics (UNCHECKABLE). For a single-parameter verification tool with this complexity, nothing essential is missing.

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%, but the description adds domain meaning beyond the schema: the card is a signed gspc.measurement-card, may arrive as an object, JSON string, or councilof.ai / csoai.org URL, and certifications are out of scope. It reinforces the accepted forms and adds context the schema alone lacks.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Verify a signed gspc.measurement-card' and specifies the exact procedure: recompute the id from canonical body bytes and check the Ed25519 signature against the pinned did:web key. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_axis, list_cards, and board_totals.

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 intended use is explicit — verify a signed card under the published rule — and the description gives a clear exclusion ('Never a certification'). It does not name sibling tools as alternatives, so it stops short of full alternate-route guidance, but an agent can infer when this tool applies.

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