Record a verification

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: appending (persistent write), surviving compaction (durability), and verbatim propagation to summaries (downstream effect). It does not fully cover reversibility or authorization, but the added context goes beyond a bare statement.

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?

Two sentences, zero fluff. The action verb is front-loaded, and the second sentence provides essential behavioral context. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description offers some essential context (durability, summary propagation) but leaves parameter semantics and edge cases unaddressed. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only lightly hints at parameters via 'maker/checker' (for 'by') and 'verified results' (for 'result'/'evidence'), but leaves crucial parameters like claim, method, evidence, sessionId, and supersedes unexplained. This is a significant gap for a 7-parameter tool.

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 a specific action ('Append an entry') and a specific resource ('verification ledger (maker/checker)'), which differentiates it from read-oriented siblings like ledger_query and ledger_snapshot. This is a model of purpose clarity.

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 when to use this tool by highlighting that entries 'survive compaction' and feed 'summaries', which suggests durable verification records. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide exclusionary guidance, 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.