verify_governance_block

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the verification actions (signature, content hash, DID consistency) but does not specify the return type (e.g., boolean), side effects (likely read-only), or error conditions. It adds some behavioral context but lacks completeness.

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 a single, effective sentence (14 words) that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. No wasted words; front-loaded and scannable.

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?

While the description covers the action, it omits output details (e.g., return format) and prerequisites. Given no output schema, the agent must infer results. The description is adequate but not fully complete for a 3-parameter tool.

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% for the three parameters. The description adds value by explaining what is verified (signature, content hash, DID consistency) and how the parameters relate to each other, going beyond the schema's individual parameter 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 verb 'verify' and the resource 'governance block'. It specifies the verification components (signature, content hash, DID consistency) which distinguishes it from sibling verification tools like verify_charter or 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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (verifying a governance block) but does not give explicit when-not-to-use instructions or mention alternative tools. Given the specific purpose, the context is sufficient for an agent to infer its applicability.

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