verify_audit_chain

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it only states the operation's purpose. It does not say whether the tool is read-only, what it returns on success or failure, whether it computes or just retrieves, or whether any side effects occur. 'Verify' implies inspection, but the actual behavioral contract is left unspecified.

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 very short and front-loaded with the main verb, which is superficially concise. However, it under-specifies crucial details, so the brevity comes at the cost of usefulness; it has no structure beyond a single purpose statement.

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?

The tool has three parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and many sibling audit tools, so a complete description would need to cover usage context, parameter meaning, and return behavior to be actionable. The provided one-liner leaves all of these gaps, making it inadequate for reliable agent selection and invocation.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention saga_id, limit, or event_types. It only implies the saga scope through the phrase 'per-saga,' leaving all three parameters—including the required saga_id and the filter semantics of event_types—undocumented at the description level.

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 names a specific verb ('Verify'), resource ('per-saga SHA-256 audit hash chain'), and scope ('per-saga'), so the core purpose is clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like get_audit_events, but 'verify' is distinct enough from 'get' that an agent can infer a verification/integrity-check role.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_audit_events or get_saga_timeline. There are no context cues, exclusions, prerequisites, or examples, so an agent has no help selecting it over similar audit-related tools.

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