verify_governance_block

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It indicates the tool performs read-only verification checks but does not disclose return format, error behavior, or side effects. It adds detail about the specific checks but lacks comprehensive behavioral context.

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?

Single, focused sentence that front-loads the verb and immediately states the object. No filler 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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain the return behavior, which it doesn't. It also omits prerequisites or error conditions. While the schema covers parameters, the description leaves the agent uncertain about what a successful verification returns.

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 covers all three parameters with clear descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic meaning by mapping the parameters to the verification concepts (signature, content hash, DID consistency), which helps the agent understand how block, content, and publicKey relate.

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') and names the resource ('governance block'), and further specifies the exact aspects verified (signature, content hash, DID consistency). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_governance_block or parse_governance_block_html.

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 the tool is for verifying governance blocks but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. It doesn't state when to prefer this over related verification tools like verify_charter or verify_delegation.

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