steward_verifier_pubkey

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 so well: 'Free, read-only — never signs or spends' gives the safety profile, and it discloses exactly what the returned key verifies and how the signature is computed (sorted keys, no whitespace, UTF-8, signing_pubkey blanked). It omits any indication of caching/rate limits or the concrete response shape, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Front-loads the resource, then packs the verification recipe and companion tool into a few tight clauses with no filler. The canonicalization detail is dense but earns its place for an offline-verification tool.

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?

For a no-param, no-output-schema tool, the description gives enough: what the key is, what it verifies, the canonical format needed to use it, and the sibling to pair with. Only the exact return encoding beyond 'hex' is left implicit, which is minor.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to document and the baseline is 4. Schema description coverage is trivially 100% and the description correctly adds no per-parameter noise.

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?

Starts with a specific verb+resource: it returns the Steward Verified issuer's Ed25519 public key in hex. It also draws an explicit boundary with the sibling trust_verify_status ('reports the status this key lets you verify yourself'), so an agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema.

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?

States the condition of use ('independently verify any Steward Verified record's signature offline') and names the companion/alternative tool (trust_verify_status). It stops short of an explicit when-not or a decision rule for choosing between the two, but the context is clear.

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