Verify live delegated authority

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

Goes well past the annotations: it discloses that the verifier evaluates upstream revocation and alternative delegation paths, that decisions are ALLOW/DENY/UNKNOWN, that UNKNOWN must not permit the action, that a standalone response does not enforce authorization, and that demo mode is simulated. These are exactly the behavioral traits annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and when-to-call, then proceeds to decision semantics, enforcement caveat, and environment caveats in a sensible order. It is dense but nearly every sentence carries operational weight; a small amount of prose could be compressed.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the return values and does so fully (ALLOW/DENY/UNKNOWN plus how to treat UNKNOWN). It also covers the enforcement-boundary semantics and the credential/endpoint prerequisites needed to interpret a result, which is complete for a verification primitive.

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 baseline would be 3; however the description adds meaning beyond the schema by tying 'consistency' and 'maxStalenessMs' to 'configured consistency and freshness guarantees' and flagging the bounded-only limitation of the Developer Preview. The remaining gap is that it doesn't address the nested 'action' object's shape.

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 (verify) and resource (delegated authority path) with scope: 'whether an AI agent currently has a valid delegated authority path from a principal for a requested action.' This clearly separates it from the only sibling, gate_status, which reads as a status/report tool rather than a point-in-time authority decision.

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?

'Call immediately before a protected operation, using trusted principal, actor and action context' gives a concrete invocation point, and the caveats about live network vs demo mode and the bounded-only consistency constraint help the agent decide when the call is meaningful. It stops short of an explicit when-not-to-use rule or a named alternative beyond the implicit gate_status contrast.

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