handoff_verify

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the two verdict outcomes, that feedback overwrites previous feedback and goes to the claimant's inbox, and the strict-mode credential requirement. It omits error/edge behavior (wrong state, idempotency, concurrency) that matters for a state-mutating tool.

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?

It is short and front-loads the core behavior, but the telegraphic style ('pass session creds', arrow notation) sacrifices readability, and the opening clause is dense enough that an agent must re-read it to parse the state transitions.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the primary path. For a 7-parameter, multi-mode (open vs strict trust) verification tool with no annotations, however, more operational context (preconditions, failure behavior) would be needed for full completeness.

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%, so the schema already documents every parameter including feedback and the session credentials. The description's only added param meaning is a restatement of the strict-mode session requirement ('pass session creds'), which the schema already states, so baseline 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('verifier-only verdict on a VERIFYING handoff') and spells out both state-machine outcomes, which lets an agent distinguish it from handoff_complete, handoff_reject, and handoff_cancel. It is clear but relies on terse jargon rather than plainly naming the siblings it is not.

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?

'Verifier-only' and the VERIFYING precondition imply when the tool applies, and the agent_id note ('the claimant is always refused') narrows the caller. But it never explicitly contrasts this with the sibling verify/complete/reject tools or states what to do when the handoff is in another state, so usage is only implied.

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