mutualAuthVerifyTrustBundle

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the return values (ok:true on success) and enumerates possible failure reasons (untrusted_publisher, signature_invalid, bundle_expired, not_yet_valid), which gives good insight into expected behavior without revealing internal mechanics.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence provides necessary information. There is no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, required inputs, and return behavior, which is enough for an agent to invoke it correctly. It does not detail the structure of TrustAnchorBundle or the output format, but given the absence of an output schema, the information provided 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 input schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal contextual value by calling the public keys 'root configuration', but it does not materially enrich understanding of 'bundle' or 'now_ms' beyond the schema.

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 verb 'Verify' and the specific resource 'TrustAnchorBundle signature and freshness', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes this from sibling verification tools like mutualAuthVerifyAttest by explicitly naming the TrustAnchorBundle resource.

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 gives clear context by specifying that the caller supplies trusted publisher public keys (root configuration), which indicates when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for an agent to select this tool over other verification siblings.

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