verify_issuer

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It discloses the verification logic (checking countersignature against public key) and the outcome for self-signed passports, but omits details on error handling, authentication requirements, or what constitutes successful verification. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 sentences, no extraneous information. Every word serves a purpose: verb, resource, mechanism, return condition. Highly efficient.

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 description covers the core purpose and return condition (false for self-signed) but does not specify the return type for successful verification or error cases. Given the tool's complexity and lack of output schema, additional detail on expected behavior would improve completeness.

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% according to provided data, so baseline is 3. The description adds context by tying 'issuer countersignature' to the issuerSignature field and 'self-signed' to the signature field, slightly enriching meaning but not substantially beyond the schema.

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 official issuance of a passport by AEOESS. It specifies the mechanism (checking issuer countersignature against the published public key) and distinguishes from sibling tools like issue_passport and verify_delegation.

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 when to use the tool (when needing to verify official issuance) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives. The mention of returning false for self-signed passports adds context but lacks broader usage guidance.

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