verify_endorsement

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool performs a cryptographic signature check, which subtly indicates a read-only validation, but it does not mention return values, error behavior, or side effects. This is minimal but non-contradictory.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and a direct elaboration. It is concise, with no wasted words or redundant information.

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 simple one-parameter tool without an output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It lacks explicit return value semantics and usage guidance, but the tool's simplicity reduces the need for extensive documentation. Gaps include what the tool returns (e.g., boolean, verification result) and when to choose this over other verify tools.

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 fully covers the single parameter 'endorsement_id' with a clear description. The tool description adds context that the endorsement is from a principal to an agent, reinforcing the parameter's meaning. Given 100% schema coverage, the description does not need to add more.

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 tool's function: verifying a principal's endorsement of an agent. It includes the specific mechanism ('Checks cryptographic signature'), distinguishing it from sibling verification tools like verify_delegation or 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 implies usage context (verifying an endorsement) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus other verification tools, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. It relies on the tool name and common sense rather than explicit guidance.

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