verify_evidence_pack

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It helpfully discloses the recomputation behavior, return fields, and RFC 8785 canonicalization rules, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, whether it has side effects, or what happens on malformed input.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by return values and canonicalization details. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundant or filler 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?

The description covers the input expectations implicitly through the schema, explains the return fields since no output schema exists, and documents the canonicalization algorithm. It is nearly complete for a verification tool, though it could mention whether the operation is purely read-only and how errors are surfaced.

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 single parameter has 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already explains that the JSON string must include evidence_pack_hash and that the hash is recomputed over remaining fields. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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?

The description uses a specific verb (verify) and resource (MTCP Evidence Pack), and explains the exact mechanism: recomputing evidence_pack_hash. It distinguishes the tool from siblings such as evaluate_decision and validate_governance by focusing narrowly on integrity verification.

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 makes clear that this tool is for integrity verification via hash recomputation, giving an agent enough context to select it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name an alternative for broader governance validation.

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