verify_form_baseline

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds meaningful context by disclaiming what the check does NOT establish (provenance, publication), which directly guards against over-trusting a passing result. It still omits what a mismatch produces, but the scope limitation is substantive beyond the annotations.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the limitation is stated immediately after the action so the agent reads it before invoking.

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 and a nested-object parameter, the description should indicate what a verification returns (boolean match, mismatch detail) and how the snapshot is supplied. The provenance disclaimer is valuable but the result shape remains undisclosed.

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 only 33%, with the nested 'snapshot' object and 'expected_hash' undocumented in the schema. The description clarifies that expected_hash is the 'independently retained' reference value (important, since it implies the hash must come from outside this call), but leaves the snapshot object's structure entirely unexplained.

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 names a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('a baseline snapshot against an independently retained hash'), which is enough to distinguish it from the capture_* siblings. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool, but the comparison operation is unambiguous.

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?

It gives a negative boundary ('Does not authenticate provenance or publication'), which implies this is a pure integrity check rather than a trust/approval step. However, it never states when to use it instead of capture_form_baseline or capture_published_form_baseline, nor any prerequisite for having a baseline already captured.

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