verify_endorsement

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly discloses the cryptographic limitation of the verification and the external trust requirement. It does not describe return values or error behavior, but the core behavioral caveat is presented clearly and accurately.

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 dense sentences with no filler. The core operation is front-loaded, and the crucial limitation is stated immediately after. Every sentence earns its place and the structure makes the trust boundary easy to grasp.

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 read-only verification tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, success criteria, the critical limitation, and the required external trust anchor. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call it correctly and interpret the result at a semantic level.

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 endorsement_id as 'Endorsement ID to verify' at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful context by explaining that the verification key is inside the endorsement itself, implying no separate key parameter is needed, but it does not expand on ID format or acquisition.

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 states a specific verb and resource: checking an endorsement's signature against the principalPublicKey carried by the endorsement itself. It also clarifies the scope of what the result does and does not establish, which meaningfully differentiates it from broader trust-verification tools like verify_issuer.

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 guidance on what this tool is for and, importantly, what it cannot be used for: it verifies signature integrity against the embedded key but not key-to-principal binding, which needs an out-of-band trust anchor. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the boundary is explicit enough for correct selection.

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