aps_verify_attribution_primitive

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context by explaining that the tool constructs projections for all four axes before verifying, but it does not mention potential side effects, error behavior, or return format. This is acceptable but not rich.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary verb 'verify,' and free of unnecessary detail. It efficiently conveys purpose and usage without 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?

For a two-parameter verification tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and key behavioral details. The only gap is that it does not indicate what the tool returns (e.g., boolean, result object), but the overall context is reasonably complete.

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 schema already covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds some context by referring to 'full' primitive and 'four axes,' but it does not clarify the expected type/structure of the primitive parameter beyond what the vague schema says.

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 performs 'End-to-end verify of a full AttributionPrimitive' and specifies it constructs projections for all four axes. It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like aps_verify_attribution_projection by emphasizing 'full' verification.

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 explicit use cases: 'post-construction sanity check' and 'verifying a primitive received from a peer.' However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it falls just short of a perfect score.

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