verify_document

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the core verification steps and the fallback behavior, but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, potential error conditions, or the shape of the return value. It gives useful insight without full transparency.

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 a single front-loaded sentence that begins with the action and resource, followed by the mechanism and the fallback condition. Every phrase adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential purpose, the mechanism, and the conditional fallback. It does not describe the return format, but for a verification tool the output is likely self-evident. The description is sufficient for correct selection and initial invocation.

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 input schema already describes all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context beyond the schema by introducing 'NIGHTGATE document id' and the fallback condition tied to contractAddress, which clarifies the domain and the conditional behavior. This adds meaningful semantics over 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Verify') and resource ('anchored document'), identifies the primary identifier ('NIGHTGATE document id'), and explains the verification mechanism (comparing sha256 and confirming the anchoring transaction). This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling verification tools focused on predicates or attestations.

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 states the main use case (verifying an anchored document by document id) and provides a conditional alternative ('crawler-free live-state fallback when contractAddress is supplied'). It does not explicitly say when not to use this tool versus siblings, but the focus on documents is implied. This is clear context without explicit exclusions.

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