glyphdna_verify

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure on its own. It states the core behavior and result, but it does not disclose failure behavior (e.g., invalid hash), whether verification is read-only, or any token lifecycle/expiry. These are gaps, but the main operation is still 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 one tight sentence that front-loads the operation and result, then gives the argument specification. No filler words or redundant information.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should also specify the token return shape and error/edge-case behavior. It gives the essential input and outcome, but leaves some context about the ledger and response format unstated.

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 provides no named properties, so the description's 'Args: payload_hash' line is the only source of parameter meaning. It fully compensates by naming the parameter and specifying the accepted formats (sha256:<hex> or bare hex).

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 names a specific verb ('Verify'), a specific object ('a ledgered payload hash'), and the outcome ('get a guest token'). This is enough to distinguish glyphdna_verify from siblings like glyphdna_network_status, glyphdna_presence, or glyphdna_meet_open, none of which are described as hash verification or token issuance.

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 use case is implied rather than explicit: an agent would use this when it has a payload hash to verify and needs a guest token. However, no alternatives are named and there are no when-not-to-use conditions, so it does not fully guide tool selection against the sibling set.

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