Verify a Signed Print

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

Beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations, the description discloses detailed runtime behavior: public key ring fetching with caching and refresh policy, kid-based key selection, no API key sent, and what valid=true does and does not authenticate. This is strong transparency.

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 compact and information-dense, with four sentences covering purpose, canonical bytes, key handling, and validation semantics. No fluff or redundant phrasing is present.

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?

The description covers the core verification flow, key management, and the meaning of valid=true, which is sufficient given the lack of an output schema. It does not explicitly specify error behavior on missing keys or network failures, but those are secondary to the main verification purpose.

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?

The description clarifies how parameters map to the canonical byte layout: 'pulse-index-v1\n<symbol>\n<priceText or String(price)>\n<at>\n<grade>'. It also explains the optional kid semantics and the role of the signature, adding meaning beyond the schema definitions.

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 opens with a clear, specific action: 'Verify a signed print locally with ECDSA P-256/SHA-256.' It identifies both the operation (verify) and the resource (a signed print), and the cryptographic context distinguishes it from the sibling getter tools.

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 explains what the tool does but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over the sibling getter tools, nor does it give an alternative. It implies verification use cases but stops short of clear selection guidance.

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