aps_verify_attribution_primitive

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool constructs projections for all axes and verifies each, implying read-only behavior. However, it does not explicitly state it is read-only, nor mention potential side effects, preconditions, or error behavior.

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 unnecessary words. Front-loaded with the core action and then context. 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?

No output schema and no annotations. The description does not explain what the verification returns (success, failure, details) or if it errors. For a verification tool, this is a significant gap, leaving the agent uncertain about the outcome.

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%, with both parameters described in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema for 'primitive' or 'issuer_public_key', so baseline score 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 clearly states the tool performs end-to-end verification of an AttributionPrimitive by constructing projections for all four axes and verifying each. It's specific and distinguishes from siblings like aps_verify_attribution_projection.

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?

Describes two use cases: post-construction sanity check and verifying a primitive from a peer. Provides clear context but does not explicitly list when not to use or mention alternatives, though siblings imply other verify tools serve different purposes.

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