verify_attestation

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses important behavioral traits: it reads LIVE state, returns verified:false (not an error) when absent, and optionally checks content root. This is substantive, though it does not address all possible behaviors (e.g., network handling, error conditions).

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?

The description is concise, with two well-structured sentences that front-load the core purpose. No wasted words; each sentence adds value.

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 that there is no output schema, the description explicitly clarifies the return behavior for the absent case, which is important. It also explains the key differentiators. It does not cover every nuance, but the schema fills in parameter details.

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?

The schema already documents all five parameters with 100% coverage, so the description adds only a little extra meaning by linking 'contentRoot' to 'anchored content root' and implying payloadHash. This matches the baseline for good schema coverage.

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 identifies the action (verify) and resource (LIVE Midnight contract state, AttestationVault), and specifies that it checks payload hash attestation. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like verify_predicate_attestation by highlighting 'crawler-free, no txHash needed'.

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 provides useful context by noting it is crawler-free and does not require a txHash, which hints at appropriate use cases. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, 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.