verify_and_admit

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

The description describes the basic actions but does not disclose side effects, authentication requirements, failure behavior, or the disposition of the signed arrival marker (e.g., returned or stored). Since annotations are absent, the description carries the full burden and is only partially transparent.

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 a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without fluff. It is well front-loaded.

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?

The description explains the input parameters but does not specify the output format or any side effects. Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description could be more complete by explaining what the tool returns or how the signed arrival marker is handled.

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% and all parameters have descriptions. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 three distinct actions (verify, evaluate, create) and the objects involved (EXIT marker, admission policy, signed arrival marker). It distinguishes this combined tool from sibling tools that perform individual steps.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this combined tool versus using separate sibling tools like verify_exit_marker, evaluate_admission, or create_exit_marker. Prerequisites or alternatives are not mentioned.

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