verify_charter

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose several behavioral aspects (what integrity checks are performed: content hash, signatures, office consistency, incompatibility) but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what it returns, or any permissions required. The term 'Verify' implies a read operation, but this is not explicitly stated.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core action ('Verify a charter's integrity') and immediately lists specifics. Every word adds value and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 tool is simple (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations). The description explains what the tool does and highlights key integrity aspects, but it does not describe the return value format or provide more detail on ambiguous terms like 'incompatibility'. While this is a fairly complete description for a verification tool, the lack of any output or behavioral detail prevents a perfect score.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with charter_id described as 'Charter ID to verify'. The tool description adds context about what the verification checks but does not elaborate on the parameter format, accepted values, or how the parameter relates to the checks. Thus, it adds minimal value beyond the schema, aligning with baseline 3.

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 the specific verb 'Verify' and clearly defines the resource as 'a charter's integrity' with a detailed list of check types: content hash, signatures, office consistency, incompatibility. This distinctively separates it from siblings like create_charter or sign_charter, which likely have different purposes.

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 clearly implies the tool is used when a charter's integrity needs to be validated, and lists specific aspects to check. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternative tool names, so it lacks explicit exclusions or comparison to alternatives.

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