aps_verify_attribution_projection

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

With no annotations to rely on, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the return format ({valid: true} or {valid: false} with specific reason codes) and reveals a key behavioral trait ('purely local'), which is valuable. It does not mention potential exceptions, performance, or permission requirements, but for a verification tool the return-value transparency is strong.

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 three concise sentences, each adding necessary information. It front-loads the verb and resource, then details the return format and the local-only nature. No redundant or filler content, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 verification tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains the return values (including possible reason codes) and the local execution model, covering all essential aspects a user would need to invoke the tool 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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters ('projection' and 'issuer_public_key'), including descriptions. The tool description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema—only clarifying that 'projection' comes from aps_project_attribution, which is also mentioned in the schema. Thus, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: verifying a single-axis AttributionProjection under the issuer's Ed25519 public key. It uses a specific verb ('verify'), identifies the resource ('AttributionProjection'), and distinguishes itself by noting 'single-axis' and 'purely local — no other axes required', which differentiates it from sibling APS verification tools.

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 some usage context by emphasizing 'single-axis' and 'no other axes required', implying this tool is appropriate for single-axis verifications without requiring additional data. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when to use them, leaving room for clearer guidance.

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