verify_bundle

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description adds valuable behavioral details: 'Read-only; no network calls', specifies the use of embedded keys, describes the return JSON structure including error handling, and states it works offline. This fully informs the agent of what to expect.

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 sentences that efficiently convey purpose, input options, output format, and alternative tool usage. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or filler. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool has no output schema, the description fully documents the return value structure and error case. Parameters are completely covered by schema. Annotations cover safety. Sibling tool context is provided. The description is comprehensive and leaves no ambiguity.

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 input schema already has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters (path and bundle_json). The description merely restates that the bundle can be provided as raw JSON or a file path, adding no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score 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 clearly states the verb 'verify' and the resource 'every receipt in a ScopeBlind audit bundle'. It specifies offline verification using embedded keys, and it distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'verify_receipt' by noting when to use each.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool (for bundles with multiple receipts) and when to use the alternative 'verify_receipt' (for single artifacts or external keys). It also notes that no network calls are needed, guiding appropriate usage.

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