verify_agent

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the returned fields (tier, composite score, tested model, public key, verification_status, dispute_count, freshness, revocation) and explains the freshness scale. It also notes that unknown or disputed counterparts are 'useful risk information', which reveals a behavioral nuance. It does not explicitly state read-only side effects, but the verb 'check' implies a non-mutating operation.

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, then delivers return data and edge-case behavior in a compact, well-organized flow. Every sentence adds information: the first defines when to use it, the second lists outputs, the third explains unknown/disputed handling, and the last covers the optional parameter. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly explains the main return values and their semantics. It also covers the behavior for edge cases (unknown/disputed), the meaning of freshness, and the optional claimed_code verification. For a 2-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, this is complete enough for an agent to invoke it 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by framing both parameters in the due-diligence context: handle is the counterparty to look up, claimed_code is used to 'confirm a VG code the agent presented is genuine.' This clarifies the optional parameter's purpose beyond the schema's phrasing.

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 specific verb and resource: 'check another agent's Verigent status'. It goes beyond a tautology by naming the exact action (due diligence) and the context (before delegating, trusting, or transacting). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on status verification rather than starting, reporting, or revoking credentials.

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 gives clear when-to-use guidance: 'before you delegate to it, trust it, or transact with it.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is strong enough that an agent can infer it is for status checks, not for initiating or managing verifications. The claimed_code instruction adds a specific sub-scenario.

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