Verify an Agent Trust Passport

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the demo keys are test-only synthetic keys, and critically that 'Verification is not authorization (authority_effect NONE)', which prevents an agent from misusing the result.

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?

Purpose and scope are front-loaded in the first clause, followed by mode guidance and the authorization caveat. It is a dense single block but every sentence carries information; a list-style breakdown would read more cleanly, hence not a 5.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description covers purpose, modes, required parameter combinations, and the important non-authorization caveat. It does not describe failure/error behavior, which leaves a minor gap for a verification 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the parameter relationships in prose: which parameters pair together (passport_json with trusted_key_json), that revocation_list_json is optional, and that passing example bypasses caller-supplied JSON. That is more than the raw schema conveys.

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?

States a specific verb (verify) and resource (Agent Trust Passport) and enumerates precisely what is checked: schema, semantics, Ed25519 signature, key trust, validity window, and signed revocation. This distinguishes it clearly from the unrelated siblings check_inventory and build_decision_pack.

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?

Gives two clear invocation modes and the condition that selects each: use example='signed-unrevoked'/'signed-revoked' for synthetic demos, or pass passport_json (with trusted_key_json, optionally revocation_list_json) for real input. It does not state when NOT to use it or compare against siblings, but the sibling set is unrelated, so a 4 is appropriate.

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