verify_attribution

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does clarify that the tool checks internal consistency and whether records are unedited, suggesting a read-only verification. It does not disclose return values, failure behavior, or any permission/state requirements, but for a no-argument check the core behavior is reasonably conveyed.

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 compact and leads with the key concept, then lists the specific items checked. The final sentence is somewhat redundant with the first, but the overall length is appropriate and there is little filler beyond that.

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 parameterless verification tool the description is mostly sufficient, but with no output schema it does not say what the caller should expect (boolean, report, attestation) or how to interpret the tamper-evidence result. The list of checked fields compensates for much of this gap.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters and full schema coverage, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameters. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter documentation burden exists.

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 identifies a specific integrity-check operation over named state (k, influence budget, influence gate, slash ledger) and scopes it to the attribution/poison-defense layer. It is more specific than a restatement, but the reliance on a question and domain jargon means it doesn't land with the explicitness of a direct 'verifies X' statement.

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?

It implies the right use case: invoke when you need tamper-evidence or integrity confirmation for the poison-resistance state. However, it never states when not to use it or names alternatives among the many verify_* siblings, leaving selection to inference.

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