Verify PDF signatures

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint. Description adds detailed behavioral context: recomputes SHA-256, validates CMS messageDigest, verifies signatureValue, explains chainTrust handling. No contradiction.

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?

Description is well-structured: starts with purpose, then method, then response shape. No redundant sentences; each sentence adds value. Length is appropriate for the complexity.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (signature verification with trust chain handling), the description is complete. Output schema exists, so return values are documented. Annotations cover safety traits. No gaps.

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?

Input schema covers all parameters (100% coverage). Description adds meaningful context: pdfBase64 is the input PDF, trustedRootsDerBase64 is optional for trust validation, and explains how chainTrust relates to this parameter.

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?

Clearly states it verifies PDF signatures, specifying types (PAdES Baseline, adbe.pkcs7.detached). Distinguishes from sibling tools like 'sign_pdf' and 'validate_pdf' through its focus on signature verification.

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?

Explicitly says 'Read-only verification' and describes the process. While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use, the context makes it clear this is for verification only vs. sibling tools for signing or adding attachments.

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