verify_audit_log

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already tells the agent this is a non-destructive read, and the description is consistent with that (recomputation rather than repair). The word 'every' usefully discloses full-scope, potentially expensive traversal over proposals, verdicts and orders. It does not say how a mismatch is surfaced (exception vs. result flag) or whether verification is incremental.

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?

A single dense sentence with no filler and the mechanism stated up front. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool, though it is terse to the point of leaving result semantics unstated.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what the agent receives back, and it does not: it never says whether the result is a pass/fail boolean, a list of breaking records, or a thrown error. For a low-complexity, zero-param verification call this is an acceptable but incomplete definition.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema carries no semantics to be explained and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies the operation is parameterless and global rather than scoped.

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?

Names a specific mechanism (recompute the hash chain) and an explicit scope (every proposal, verdict and order), which tells an agent exactly what the tool does. It does not differentiate from any sibling, though the sibling list (catalog/order/cart tools) is largely unrelated to audit verification, so the name plus description still identify it uniquely.

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?

There is no guidance on when to run this: no trigger conditions (e.g., after a suspected tampering, before signing off an audit), no prerequisites, no indication of how it relates to the other audit-adjacent tools. The agent must infer the usage context entirely from the name.

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