Verify pinned artifact evidence

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and closed-world. The description adds genuine value beyond that: the 'independently recheck' framing signals a re-verification pass, and the caveat that 'Hash integrity does not prove findings are correct or tests ran' scopes what a passing result actually guarantees.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the pairing instruction, then the limitation. Every sentence carries distinct information with no 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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description need not explain returns or read-only behavior. It covers purpose, when to use, and the key limitation, though it could say more about what a failed verification means for the caller.

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 both required fields (manifest_id, manifest_sha256) documented in-schema. The description adds no additional syntax or format detail for the parameters, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('recheck') and resource ('active access and every pinned artifact's bytes/hash'), plus the crucial qualifier 'independently'. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like artifact_manifest_get or artifact_read, which retrieve rather than verify.

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 context: 'Use alongside validate_subagent_result before accepting artifact-backed output.' That names the sibling it pairs with and the moment of use. It does not state when to skip it, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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