Verify a provenance receipt

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

The description fully explains the verification process (re-hashing content, checking Ed25519 signature, return shape with valid and details), including what valid means and how to interpret failures. It also clarifies that a 200 response does not guarantee validity. No annotations were provided, so the description carries the full burden and meets it excellently.

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 a single, well-structured paragraph that front-loads the action and includes all necessary details without redundancy. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description comprehensively covers the return structure and meaning. All parameters are clearly documented, and the tool's behavior is fully described, making it complete for its complexity.

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 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds value by explaining the verification process and linking the receipt parameter to certify_provenance, providing context beyond 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 clearly states the tool verifies a provenance receipt against its content, with a specific verb 'verify' and resource 'provenance receipt'. It is distinct from sibling tools like certify_provenance (which creates receipts) and those for quality scoring, leaving no ambiguity.

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 implies usage (after obtaining a receipt from certify_provenance) but does not explicitly state when to use or when not to use, nor mention alternatives. It provides no exclusions, so guidance is only implied.

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