validate_proof

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 well, disclosing that the tool checks signature, expiry, and revocation status server-side, and optionally validates the identifier. It also reveals the public endpoint nature, adding useful behavioral context. It doesn't mention response details, but the core behavior is clearly disclosed.

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?

The description is three concise sentences with the primary action front-loaded. The second sentence adds the key validation details, and the third notes the auth requirement. Every sentence earns its place with no superfluous content.

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 simple two-parameter validation tool with no output schema, the description covers the main operation and the public-auth requirement. Parameter details are fully handled by the schema. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit return-value information, but this doesn't prevent an agent from calling the tool 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%, with proof_token and identifier already well-documented. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Validate' with the resource 'proof token' and lists the exact checks performed (signature, expiry, revocation status). It is clear and unambiguous, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_proof_status or verify_delegation.

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?

The description implies usage when full validation of a proof token is needed by listing the checks, and notes it is public with no API key required. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it give exclusions or comparison to sibling tools.

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