audit_chain_artifact_claim

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context on the composite's behavior: it runs parallel calls, flags against a false-claim registry, and optionally forges a demo proof via dero_forge_demo_proof. While forging might raise concerns about mutability, the description frames it as a computational transformation embedded in output, not a persistent change, so no contradiction but close.

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 well-structured with sections for purpose, when to call, input requirements, and output. It is thorough but slightly verbose; however, every sentence adds value. Front-loads key information.

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?

Given the complexity (composite with 5 parameters, no output schema), the description comprehensively covers output fields (verdict, chain_facts null cases, proof_decode null, forge_demo condition), edge cases, and usage guidance. It fully accounts for all aspects of the tool.

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 significant meaning: explains at least one parameter required, topoheight optional non-negative, block_hash/tx_hash 64 hex, proof_string full bech32, and include_forge_demo default false with detailed auto-selection logic. This goes well beyond the schema.

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 tool is a 'Composite' that audits a chain artifact end-to-end, specifying the return verdict, chain facts, proof decode, narrative, and rebuttal citations. It distinguishes from siblings like dero_get_block_header_by_topo_height by noting it aggregates multiple calls.

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 provides explicit when-to-call examples, advises preferring this over chaining individual tools, lists required input constraints (at least one parameter), and explains when to use include_forge_demo. It also instructs to cite returned related_docs verbatim.

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