Verify Governance Block

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is settled. The description adds genuinely useful behavior that annotations cannot express: an unreadable expiry fails closed instead of being treated as unexpired, which is exactly the kind of failure-mode disclosure an agent needs. It stops short of 5 because it does not say what the verification result looks like or how partial failures are reported.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the verification scope front-loaded ahead of the fail-closed caveat. Every clause carries information the agent 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 should ideally state the shape of the verification result (boolean vs per-check report) and what a caller does on failure; that is the one omission. Otherwise the inputs, the checks performed, and the fail-closed edge case are complete for a three-parameter read-only verifier.

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% and all three parameters are documented in the schema (block JSON, original content, Ed25519 public key hex). The description only loosely ties 'against the original content' to the content parameter and 'signature' to publicKey, adding little syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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) and resource (governance block) and enumerates the exact facets checked: signature, content hash, DID consistency and expiry. An agent can distinguish this from generate_governance_block or parse_governance_block_html, but the description never names a sibling to route against, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus verify_charter, verify_amendment, verify_delegation, or the generate/parse governance-block siblings. The phrase 'against the original content' hints at a precondition, but no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-selection guidance is given.

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