verify_proof

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

No annotations, so description carries full burden. States core behavior (verification, returns proof path) but omits side effects, permissions, error conditions, or success/failure details.

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?

Extremely concise (21 words over two sentences), front-loaded with main action, no fluff.

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?

Adequate for a simple 1-param tool with no output schema, but lacks output format details and error handling. Could be more explicit about return value structure.

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 covers 100% of parameters with description and pattern. Tool description adds no extra meaning beyond schema, so baseline 3 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?

Clearly states verb (verify), resource (ZAP1 Merkle proof), and specific action (checks leaf hash existence, returns proof path). Distinguishes from siblings like zap1_prove_receipt and zap1_verify_evm.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No prerequisites, exclusions, or context provided despite 18 sibling tools.

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