verify_document

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it returns a specific JSON structure, explains the certification logic (exact match), mentions SHA-256 hashing before sending, and states it's public. No contradictions. It lacks info on rate limits or error cases, but overall transparent.

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 concise, structured with bullet points for use cases and return values. Every sentence adds value, with no wasted words. The format is clear and easy to parse.

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 simplicity (one parameter, simple return type), the description covers the main functionality well. It explains the return format and logic without an output schema. It could include error handling info, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use 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?

There is only one parameter with 100% schema coverage. The description adds meaning by specifying that the file_path is an absolute path and that it is SHA-256 hashed locally before sending, which goes beyond the schema's description.

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 tool checks for a prior Cryptair attestation on Hedera Hashgraph. It uses specific verb 'verify' and mentions a specific resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'check_attestation', which might have overlapping functionality.

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 provides a list of when to use the tool (confirm counterparty claim, detect alteration, look up original transaction). It also mentions it's public and no API key required. However, it does not specify when NOT to use it or suggest alternatives to other sibling tools.

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