Verify Delegation

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: verification is self-referential (checked against the delegatedBy key the artifact carries), revocation is out of scope, and an unreadable expiresAt fails closed. These are exactly the traits an agent needs and cannot derive from the safety hints.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and then layering scope caveats; every sentence carries information. Dense but not padded, though the second sentence is long and could be split for scannability.

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 compensates by spelling out the meaning of a valid result (intact and internally consistent, not authoritative) and the fail-closed edge case. Combined with annotations covering safety, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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% with a single required delegation_id parameter, so the schema already documents the input. The description adds nothing about the parameter (format, source, or lookup semantics), leaving this at the baseline for fully-covered schemas.

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 (verify/check) and resource (a delegation's signature and stated window), which is precise enough to separate it from create_delegation, revoke_delegation, and sub_delegate. It stops short of naming the verification siblings (verify_issuer, verify_endorsement) it could be confused with, so the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

Strong boundary-setting: it says what a valid result does NOT establish (delegator authority) and that revocation is not consulted, which tells the agent when this tool is insufficient. It never names the alternative tool for authority or revocation checks (e.g. evaluate_revocation_impact, resolve_authority), so routing is left to inference.

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