card_verify

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that verification uses the local JWKS and that tampered cards are rejected, which adds meaningful context beyond the schema. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what errors or return values occur, or what permissions/filesystem access are required.

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 tightly written sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary validation behavior and follows with the rejection behavior for tampered cards.

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 single-parameter validation tool, the description covers the core validation and signature-checking behavior. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves important context unstated, especially what a successful or failed validation returns to the caller.

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?

There is one required parameter, card_path, with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain that this parameter is a filesystem path or what format it expects, so the agent must infer meaning solely from the parameter name.

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 states a specific verb+resource: it validates a card's schema and verifies its JWS signature against local JWKS. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like card_build and card_sign, which create or sign cards.

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 the tool is useful (to validate a card after building/signing), but it never explicitly says when to use it versus alternatives or what preconditions apply. There is no direct routing guidance to siblings such as card_sign or gateway_delegate.

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