acp_verify_audit_bundle

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

With no annotations, the description carries the whole burden, and it only states that a report is returned. It does not say whether the call is read-only, whether an invalid bundle raises an error or returns a negative report, whether a trust anchor is required, or any auth/rate constraints.

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?

One efficient, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Brevity is appropriate, though it edges into under-specification given the complexity of the inputs.

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 nested object inputs, zero schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, one sentence is not enough. The meaning of 'bilateral', the role of 'anchor', and the shape/interpretation of the verification report are all left to inference.

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 0% and both parameters are nested objects with no field descriptions. The description only implies the 'bundle' parameter; the optional 'anchor' parameter — likely a trust anchor that materially changes verification behavior — is never mentioned, so the agent has no basis for deciding whether to supply it.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Verify a bilateral AuditBundle') plus the return ('verification report'), which clearly separates it from the sibling tools (revoke/delegate/invite). The 'bilateral' qualifier is unexplained, so the agent knows the operation class but not exactly what is being validated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g. must the bundle come from a counterparty?), and no indication of what to do on failure. The siblings are unrelated enough that disambiguation is low-risk, but no usage context is supplied at all.

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