verify_audit_chain

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, yet the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: it is a tamper-evidence check, it does not repair a broken chain, and it documents the return contract { ok, valid, brokenAt? }. That is substantive disclosure, not repetition.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence, followed by usage and return contract. Every clause carries information and none is 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 parameterless, no-output-schema tool, the description supplies the missing return shape and the non-repair caveat, so an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it correctly.

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 there is nothing to document and the baseline is 4. The description does not need to compensate for any parameter gaps.

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 (recompute/verify) and resource (SHA-256 hash chain over the audit log) plus exactly what is being confirmed: no event mutated, deleted, or reordered. This cleanly separates it from siblings like audit_log, export_audit, and detect_anomalies.

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 explicit triggering contexts: 'use periodically as a tamper-evidence check' and 'whenever you suspect the audit log has been touched outside q-ring,' and clarifies it is informational and does not repair. It does not name an alternative tool (e.g., detect_anomalies) to disambiguate further, so it stops short of a 5.

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