Verify Charter Amendment

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

Annotations already establish the safe-read profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), but the description adds hard-won context the annotations cannot carry: session state is not an authoritative registry, amendments are process-local and lost on restart, and carry no external trust. It also discloses the partial-verdict reporting semantics (signature vs. threshold can diverge, and one boolean would mask both) and the discarded citation refusal — exactly the kind of behavior an agent must know before trusting the result.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, then behavior, then scope boundary — a sensible order. The one costly sentence explains verifyAmendment's internal delegation ('calls verifyCharter without receipts and then keeps only its office and incompatibility findings'), which justifies why citation refusals vanish but is heavier on implementation detail than an agent strictly needs.

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 does the work of describing the return shape conceptually ('reports each field of the SDK's verdict separately') and is exceptional on state/trust limitations. It stops short of enumerating the verdict fields themselves, which for a verification tool with no output schema is the remaining gap.

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 0% for both parameters, so the description must carry the load. It implies the relationship between the two IDs (an amendment is verified against 'its charter') and warns that amendments exist only in this process, which constrains what amendment_id can validly reference. However, it never states format, sourcing, or what happens on an unknown or expired ID, so the coverage gap is only partially closed.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb and resource ('Verify an amendment') and binds it to the charter's amendment policy, which immediately separates it from verify_charter and sign_amendment. An agent can tell what domain of check this performs without opening the schema.

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?

It explicitly states what is out of scope ('The proposed charter's citations are NOT checked here') and routes the agent to the right alternatives ('Check a proposed charter's citations with verify_charter and attribution_receipts before relying on this verdict'). The sequencing instruction ('before relying on this verdict') makes the when-to-use condition unambiguous.

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