mutualAuthVerifyAttest

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It describes the verification steps and return format (ok:true or failure reason), but does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or has side effects.

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 concise sentences front-loaded with purpose, followed by a bullet-like list of checks. Every word adds value, no redundancy.

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 function and output, but lacks details about error handling, partial outputs, or interaction with other mutual auth tools. Given the complexity and no output schema, it is minimally adequate.

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 schema already provides parameter meanings. The description adds no extra context about parameter usage beyond listing the checks.

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 'Verify a MutualAuthAttest against policy and trust anchors' and enumerates all 10 checks, making the purpose specific and distinguishable from sibling tools like mutualAuthBuildCertificate and mutualAuthDeriveSession.

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 for verifying attestations but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like mutualAuthVerifyTrustBundle. No guidance on prerequisites or context.

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