Verifier trust info (free)

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the operation is free, the returned key enables offline verification of every verdict, and no runtime trust in the service is required. This materially informs an agent's trust and ordering decisions.

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 front-loaded with 'Free' and the return-value summary, followed by the use-case guidance. It is slightly redundant in explaining offline verification twice, but every sentence earns its place and there is no clutter.

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 zero-parameter, read-only metadata tool with no output schema, the description provides a complete picture: what is returned, why to call it first, and what guarantees it supports. Nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters, so parameter semantics are trivially satisfied. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, which is unnecessary here; the baseline of 4 applies.

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 specific resource (verifier trust info) and enumerates exactly what is returned: public key, engine version, benchmark summary with sample-size labels, and scope. It also distinguishes this tool from the sibling verification tools by framing it as the offline-trust prerequisite rather than a field/presence check.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this first if your selection policy requires evidence before trusting a verification provider.' It also explains why it should precede reliance on verdicts, making the relationship to the actual verification tools clear even without naming them.

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