verify_issuer

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the verification method (cryptographic check against public key) and an important edge case ('Returns false for self-signed passports'). While it doesn't cover all error paths or explicitly state the return value for valid passports, the behavioral detail provided is meaningful and goes beyond a generic 'verify' statement.

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, front-loaded with the action, and every word contributes value. It avoids redundancy with the schema and annotations (which are absent), making it an example of efficient, well-structured prose.

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?

Given no output schema, the description should ideally clarify return semantics; it only states 'Returns false for self-signed passports,' implying a boolean return but not stating it outright. However, the tool's purpose is simple enough that the verification logic and one key edge case are sufficient for an agent to understand expected behavior. The description is complete for practical use, though a slight mention of 'true' condition would make it perfect.

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 provides 100% structural coverage of the nested passport object, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about the role of the issuerSignature and the self-signed condition, which slightly enriches parameter meaning, but it does not detail field-by-field semantics beyond what the schema already conveys.

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') and a precise resource ('a passport was officially issued by AEOESS'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling verify tools (verify_charter, verify_delegation, etc.). It also explains the verification mechanism (countersignature against AEOESS public key), leaving no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 makes the usage context clear: use this tool when you need to confirm that a passport was officially issued by AEOESS, particularly validating the issuer's countersignature. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is specific enough that an agent can distinguish it from other verification tools.

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