verify_delegation

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

No annotations are provided, leaving the description to carry full behavioral disclosure. It mentions verifying 'cryptographic signature and validity' but does not disclose output format, error behavior, or whether expiration/revocation checks are included. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation support.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and target, making it appropriately concise for a simple verification tool.

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 tool with no output schema, the description is under-specified. It does not clarify what 'validity' encompasses (e.g., expiration, revocation) or what the tool returns. Given missing annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient for complete understanding.

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 100% coverage with a clear description for delegation_id ('Delegation ID to verify'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 uses a specific verb 'verify' with the resource 'delegation' and specifies what is verified ('cryptographic signature and validity'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling verification tools like verify_charter and verify_governance_block.

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 implies usage for checking delegation validity but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like verify_charter, verify_endorsement, and create_delegation suggest potential ambiguity, yet no exclusions or when-not guidance is given.

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