Get evidence certificate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: the certificate is 'public' and 'human-readable', which informs expectations about access and output format. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It immediately identifies the verb, resource, and key qualifiers ('public', 'human-readable'), every word earning its 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?

For a simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It names the resource and returns a 'human-readable certificate', which gives the agent a reasonable expectation of the output. However, it does not clarify how this differs from the closely related get_evidence_manifest, leaving a small gap in completeness.

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%: the only parameter, documentId, is fully documented in the schema as 'VeriLock document id or slug'. The description does not add parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Read'), resource ('evidence certificate'), and scope ('for a document'), making the purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling get_evidence_manifest, so it misses full sibling differentiation, but the resource name itself is distinct enough.

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 implies a use case: retrieve the public certificate for a document. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over siblings like get_evidence_manifest or verify_document_hash, nor any exclusions or alternative conditions. Usage context is implied but not stated.

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