verify_amendment

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

Given no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It proactively discloses that it reports each field of the SDK's verdict separately (e.g., 'a signature can verify while the threshold is short'), and explains that session state is not an authoritative registry: amendments live only in this process, are lost on restart, and carry no external trust. This adds meaningful transparency about output granularity and trust implications.

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 with no filler. The first sentence states the primary purpose, and the second sentence packs essential behavioral nuance and a trust caveat. Information is front-loaded and 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?

With only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior (field-level reporting) and the critical limitation (no persistent state). It does not cover input format or error handling, but these are relatively minor for a read-only verification tool. The description is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly in most contexts.

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 provides only types and requiredness for charter_id and amendment_id, with no descriptions (0% coverage). The description does not elaborate on these parameters, their formats, or their relationships. The names imply what they are, but the description adds no semantic value beyond inference from the parameter names and tool name.

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), the resource (an amendment), and the specific context (against its charter's amendment policy). It further distinguishes itself by explaining the field-level granularity of the verdict, which sets it apart from a simple boolean check and from sibling tools like verify_charter or propose_amendment.

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 context about the field-level reporting and the ephemeral nature of amendments, but it does not explicitly direct when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state when not to use it. The warning about session state being non-authoritative implies a caution, but no explicit situational guidance is given.

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