qm_attest_verify

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it states read-only, free, anonymous, and that tokens signed under a rotated secret return invalid. It does not specify the exact return shape or error behavior, but the core behavioral traits are disclosed.

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 with no wasted words. Purpose is front-loaded, the critical same-mint-call constraint is stated early, and the example plus behavioral notes each earn their place.

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 purpose, input provenance, validity semantics, cost/auth traits, and a usage example. Since there is no output schema, the phrase 'Returns whether the signature is valid' is sufficient, though the exact return type is not spelled out.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds important meaning beyond the schema by requiring all four parameters to originate from the same qm_attest mint call and response, which is essential for correct use. It also reinforces the 'exactly as returned' constraint.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Verify a token minted by qm_attest.' It clearly differentiates from the sibling qm_attest, which mints tokens, and leaves no ambiguity about what operation this tool performs.

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 gives explicit invocation guidance: pass back all four fields exactly as returned by qm_attest, and all four must come from the same mint call and response. It does not name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the relationship to qm_attest is obvious and no competing verify sibling exists.

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