verify_hash

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the input style, the operation, and the return format ('human-readable verification summary followed by the full structured result as JSON'). However, it does not mention failure modes, error conditions, or whether the tool is strictly non-mutating beyond what the operation inherently implies.

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 and front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by a clear usage condition, parameter details, and returns. Every sentence contributes value without repetition or filler.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the decision context, parameter semantics, and expected return shape. No critical information for invoking the tool correctly appears to be 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates. It specifies file_hash as 'hex-encoded SHA-256 hash' and proof_json as 'a JSON string, OR a path to a proof JSON file', adding meaningful format and alternative-value semantics not present in 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 opens with a specific verb and object: 'Verify a known file hash against inline proof data.' It further clarifies the scope by noting the agent already has the hash and proof content and does not need to read a file from disk, which distinguishes it from siblings like verify_file and compute_file_hash.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this when you already have a file's SHA-256 hash and the proof content... and do not need to read a file from disk.' This gives a clear usage context and an implicit when-not condition, but it does not name alternative sibling tools explicitly, so the guidance isn't quite at the level of directly routing to an alternate.

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