Verify a quality score receipt

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

Despite no annotations, the description fully discloses the verification process: re-hashing content, checking Ed25519 signature, handling forged/altered scores, return format ({valid, details}), cost (free), and HTTP response interpretation (200 means ran, always read 'valid'). No contradictions.

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?

Three sentences, each purposeful. Front-loaded with the core purpose, then technical details, then practical usage note. No unnecessary words.

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 verification tool with no output schema, the description covers the return shape, HTTP response nuance, cost, and security mechanism. It is complete and self-contained.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that receipt comes from 'score_quality' and detailing the verification mechanism, going beyond the schema's basic property descriptions.

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 quality score receipt against its content using a quality-gate, with specific details about re-hashing and Ed25519 signature checking. It distinguishes from sibling tools like verify_provenance by focusing on quality scores.

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 provides some context (e.g., free, 200 response meaning) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like verify_provenance. No exclusions or alternate tool mentions are given.

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