Verify Pentest Attestation

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable context beyond them: it is a public unauthenticated endpoint and returns metadata plus blockchain proof only if anchored. It could mention rate limits or behavior for unknown hashes.

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 followed by return contents and public-access note. No wasted phrasing.

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 single-parameter read tool without an output schema, the description covers input semantics, return contents, authentication requirements, and the anchoring condition. An agent has enough to call 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single hash parameter is fully documented in the schema as the SHA-256 attestation hash included in reports. The description only restates that it is a SHA-256 hash, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 and resource ('Verify a blockchain-anchored penetration test attestation by its SHA-256 hash') and clearly distinguishes this lookup/verification action from sibling workflows like get_pentest or download_report.

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?

Explains the use case ('independently confirm that a pentest was performed and its results are tamper-proof') and notes it is public with no API key. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives, but the context is clear.

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