completion_verify

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real behavior: platform state is stored verbatim and separately, and an unattested platform-completed claim creates an exception record (spec 7.2). That is meaningful side-effect disclosure, but permissions, idempotency, and whether the brief itself is mutated remain unstated.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the edge-case rule. Dense but every clause carries information; the spec citation is the only slightly noisy element.

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 10-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the conceptual model and the exception rule but leaves most input fields undefined. An agent could call it with only brief_id but has no basis for populating the other nine fields.

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 0% across 10 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It implies meaning for scope_results and platform_state, but quote_id, timeliness, verified_at, communication, quality_notes, pro_display_name, and platform get no explanation anywhere in the definition.

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 and object: verify completion against the brief's scope statement, with the output shape (each scope item done/partial/not_done with owner attestation). That is clearly distinguishable from siblings like brief_read or review_draft, though it never explicitly names an alternative or states whether it is a pure read or a mutation.

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 explains an internal rule (an unattested platform-completed claim opens an exception record) but gives no guidance on when to call this versus review_draft or receipt_list, no prerequisites, and no statement of what state the brief must be in first. Usage must be inferred entirely.

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