verify_governance_block

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 goes beyond a generic verification statement by documenting the fail-closed behavior for unreadable expiry, which is a non-obvious and important edge case. It does not detail return format or error behavior, but the key verification semantics are transparent.

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 sentences with zero fluff. The first sentence front-loads the core verification purpose and scope; the second adds a critical failure-mode detail. Every sentence earns its place.

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 verification tool with three fully documented inputs and no output schema, the description adequately captures what is checked, against what, with what key, and the fail-closed behavior. It would benefit from explicitly stating return/output semantics, but the essential invocation context is sufficiently complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already fully documents block, content, and publicKey. The description does not add new parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Verify'), a specific resource ('a governance block'), and enumerates the exact verification dimensions: signature, content hash, DID consistency, and expiry. This clearly distinguishes it from other sibling verify tools like verify_issuer or verify_delegation by targeting governance blocks specifically.

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 when an agent has a governance block, original content, and a publisher's public key, and needs integrity/consistency verification. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of related sibling tools, nor does it mention alternatives or exclusions.

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