bind_verify_credential

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses key behaviors: parsing JWT, fetching JWKS, verifying ES256 signature, and checking expiration. It also states what it does not do (revocation check). It lacks error handling details, but the core behavioral profile is transparent.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose and a clear process list. No waste; every word contributes to understanding.

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 description covers the main workflow, return value ('Returns the verified claims on success'), and explicitly scopes out revocation. For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, this is adequately complete, though error behavior is not mentioned.

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 fully describes the 'jwt' parameter with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool 'Verify a Bind Protocol VC-JWT' and lists the verification steps. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on verification (vs parsing/hashing) and explicitly notes it does not check revocation.

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?

Explicitly says 'Does NOT check revocation status — use bind_check_revocation separately for that', naming an alternative and clarifying when not to use this tool. The verification context makes the intended use clear.

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