verify_predicate_attestation

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

No annotations are present, but the description discloses meaningful behavior: it confirms the proving transaction succeeded and mentions a 'crawler-free live-state fallback.' It could add return/error details, but the essentials of the read-only verification operation are conveyed.

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 terse sentences: first states action and mechanism, second gives alternative. No 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?

For a single-parameter verify tool without output schema, the description covers purpose, input semantics, and fallback behavior. It lacks explicit output/return shape, but the phrase 'Confirms... succeeded' implies the verification result, and complexity is low.

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% with a standard UUID field, and the description adds the operational meaning: 'NIGHTGATE row id' and 'server-issued predicate attestation,' clarifying what to pass 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?

The description opens with the specific verb 'Verify' and resource 'server-issued predicate attestation' identified by NIGHTGATE row id, and explicitly contrasts with verify_predicate for on-chain coordinates. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings.

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 explicitly names the alternative 'verify_predicate' and the condition ('when you only have on-chain coordinates'), and implicitly states when to use this tool (when you have the NIGHTGATE row id). This is strong guidance for tool selection.

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