verify_delegation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the signature is checked against the delegation's own delegatedBy key, that a valid result does not prove the delegator's authority, that revocation is not considered, and that unreadable expiresAt values fail closed. These are substantive and non-obvious behaviors.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place. The core action is front-loaded, followed by crucial boundary conditions and a failure-mode clarification. No filler or repetition.

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 single-parameter verification tool with no output schema, the description covers the verification target, the meaning of a valid result, the exclusion of revocation, and a specific failure behavior. It is nearly complete, though it does not describe the return value or explicitly confirm the tool is read-only.

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 documents the single parameter delegation_id with 100% coverage as 'Delegation ID to verify.' The description does not need to add parameter syntax details, so the baseline of 3 applies. It adds no additional parameter-specific meaning 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Check a delegation's signature and its stated window.' It clearly distinguishes this from verifying the delegator's authority and from checking revocation, which sets it apart from sibling tools like verify_issuer, verify_endorsement, and revoke_delegation.

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 useful context about when the tool is appropriate: it establishes artifact integrity and internal consistency, not authority. It also explicitly says revocation is not consulted, providing a clear exclusion. It does not name alternative tools, but the guidance is still actionable.

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