Inspect a Research Object Certificate

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the portfolio. It discloses important boundaries: 'WITHOUT verifying it' and 'Purely local — no network calls'. However, the claim 'no network calls' sits in tension with the schema's description of the url parameter ('a URL to fetch the certificate JSON from'), which implies a network fetch. This interior contradiction undermines the transparency significantly, and there is no mention of error behavior for malformed certificates.

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?

Two dense sentences with no fluff. The action lands first, the scope ('WITHOUT verifying it') is flagged immediately, and the sibling embargo closes the description. Every clause earns its place.

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 two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the obvious readiness needs: what it parses, what fields it produces, and when to pick the sibling instead. The only gap is the unresolved URL/'no network calls' contradiction, which leaves the agent uncertain about whether passing a URL triggers a fetch.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the schema (a JSON string for certificate, an alternative URL for fetching), giving high schema description coverage, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds little about the parameters themselves (e.g., conflicts between providing both, which one to prefer, or the URL fetching behavior), so it doesn't exceed the baseline.

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 uses a specific verb ('Parse'), names the exact resource (bloxberg Research Object Certificate / W3C Verifiable Credential), and enumerates what it returns (issuer, subject, dates, proof type, anchoring hints). It also immediately draws the distinction from the sibling verify_certificate by saying it does NOT verify, so an agent can differentiate the tool without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly routes to the alternative with the predicate that selects it: 'Use verify_certificate for cryptographic verification against the chain.' The 'Purely local — no network calls' statement also gives the agent contextual expectations for latency and side effects. This satisfies the when-to-use and alternative-guidance bar fully.

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