verify_footprint

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says only that a SHA-256 verification is returned, without mentioning whether this is a purely read-only lookup, how the verification is computed, whether it requires credits, or what happens if the record or dataset does not exist.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition of the schema. Every word contributes to the definition, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 tool with two simple parameters, the input side is well covered by the schema. However, with no output schema or annotations, the description leaves the exact return shape, error behavior, and expected output format unstated, and it does not place the tool in context relative to related verification tools.

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 coverage is 100%, so both dataset and record_id already have basic descriptions. The tool description adds the SHA-256 context but does not extend parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Return') and object ('SHA-256 cryptographic verification'), making clear it produces a hash rather than mutating data. The phrase 'for a dataset or record' ties directly to the two input parameters and distinguishes it from siblings like fetch_dataset or get_zk_provenance.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_zk_provenance or fetch_dataset. The description implies a verification use case, but an agent would have to infer the decision criteria from the tool name rather than the description.

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