Check Authority Delegation

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

Annotations already cover safe/idempotent/closed-world, yet the description still adds real substance: the return vocabulary (valid, invalid, indeterminate, unsupported), example failure codes (REVOKED, EXPIRED), the issuer-mismatch failure mode, and the restart caveat that revocation status is unknown for pre-restart delegations. The in-memory store limitation is exactly the kind of operational trait an agent cannot learn from annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and scope, then negative cases, then the restart caveat; each sentence carries distinct, non-redundant information. The first sentence is dense with a colon list, but nothing is padding and no sentence could be dropped without losing a fact.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly takes on the job of describing return states and failure codes, and it flags the significant restart/revocation limitation. The only meaningful gap is ecosystem-level: it does not place itself relative to verify_delegation, which the rich sibling set makes a genuine ambiguity.

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 single parameter is documented as a JSON string or object, so baseline would be 3. The description adds meaning the schema does not: which delegations are acceptable inputs (must be issued by this server's key, must be root, must match the issuer name), which directly affects what an agent should pass.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Verify a root AuthorityDelegationV1 issued by this server's key') and enumerates exactly what is checked: shape, delegation_id, signature, time window, revocation. That narrow scoping implicitly separates it from generic verification siblings, but it never names verify_delegation or create_delegation, so differentiation must be inferred.

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?

Usage is implied by scope statements ('issued by this server's key', 'root'), and one exclusion is given (a delegation this server did not issue is not valid here). However, with verify_delegation, create_delegation, revoke_delegation and resolve_authority all present as siblings, the description gives no explicit when-to-use-this-instead guidance.

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