verify_source

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

The description explains the main outputs: source URL, content hash, and optionally a signed receipt. It describes the audit chain and verification method. However, it does not disclose error handling (e.g., what happens if concept is not found), required permissions, or rate limits. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, and it is moderately transparent but misses some important behavioral traits.

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 main purpose sentence, then structured into sections (audit chain, verification, args). Each sentence adds value, though the curl command could be shortened. Overall it is well-organized and not overly verbose.

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 that an output schema exists (not shown), the description is adequate but not complete. It explains the main outputs and includes the optional receipt. However, it lacks error conditions, required prerequisites, and does not mention when to use this tool over siblings. For a tool with no annotations, more context would improve completeness.

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 description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema. For 'concept', it says 'Concept label (partial match supported).' For 'receipt', it explains the experimental receipt envelope and what it binds. This is valuable context that the schema alone (string and boolean with default) does not provide. The only minor gap is that it doesn't specify case sensitivity or format for 'concept'.

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's purpose: 'Return the source URL and content hash for an AgentForce concept node.' This is a specific verb-resource combination that immediately communicates the tool's function. The additional details about audit chain and verification further clarify the scope, distinguishing it from sibling tools like evaluate_trust_chain or export_benchmark_receipt.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus any of its siblings. It does not mention when not to use it, what prerequisites exist, or how it relates to tools like evaluate_trust_chain or get_prerequisites. The only usage hint is the curl command, which is more of a verification step than a usage guideline.

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