aps_verify_attribution_projection

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

With no annotations, the description discloses that verification is purely local (no side effects), and specifies the return format with exact error reasons (e.g., 'INVALID_AXIS_TAG', 'MERKLE_MISMATCH'). This is transparent enough for a read-only verification operation.

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: the first states purpose and return format, the second adds locality and single-axis context. No unnecessary information, perfectly concise.

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 return values with exact error reasons and mentions locality, which is sufficient given no output schema. For a single-axis verification tool among many siblings, it provides enough context to select and use correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds context by linking the 'projection' parameter to the specific output of 'aps_project_attribution'. This enhances understanding beyond the schema descriptions.

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 verifies a single-axis AttributionProjection under the issuer's Ed25519 public key, distinguishing it from sibling verification tools by emphasizing 'single-axis' and 'purely local' behavior.

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 explains that verification is local and no other axes are required, providing context for when to use it. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, it gives sufficient guidance for a single-axis projection verification scenario.

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