rep_verify

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key trait that makes this safe ("Read-only") and lists the checks performed, but says nothing about failure behavior, error signaling, whether verification is partial or strict, or what a failed seal means.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the operation and scope front-loaded and the safety trait appended. Nothing is redundant or buried.

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 two-parameter read-only verification tool with fully documented inputs, this is nearly enough. The remaining gap is that no output schema exists, so the description could have stated what a verification result looks like (pass/fail per check), but an agent can still select and invoke it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including that objectsDir enables snapshot byte verification. The description adds only the "REP v1" version constraint, not deeper semantics for path or objectsDir, so the 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?

Names a specific verb ("Verify") and resource ("REP v1 record") and enumerates exactly what is checked: manifest seal, snapshot hashes, anchor quotes. That scope is distinguishable from siblings rep_inspect and rep_list by intent, though the description never names or contrasts them explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the enumerated integrity checks suggest calling it to confirm a record's authenticity, and "Read-only" signals it is safe. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. rep_inspect, no precondition (e.g., must the record exist locally?), and no guidance on when verification is unnecessary.

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