verify_archive

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it names the exact mechanism (SHA-256 recompute for sealed, open/row-count checks for open archives), which is substantive behavioral disclosure. It still omits whether the call is side-effect-free, permission requirements, and failure/error behavior, so it stops short of 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-loaded one-line purpose followed by two tightly scoped branches and a return summary; every sentence earns its place and the sealed/open split is easy to scan.

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?

Covers the tool's dual behavior thoroughly and even restates the return shape (which the output schema already provides, but with the useful sealed-only qualifier). Missing only safety/permission context and error semantics, which no annotations supply.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents archive_id. The description adds no syntax, format, or selection detail for the parameter, matching the baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb (verify) and resource (archive) plus the exact property being checked (integrity), which cleanly separates it from retrieval siblings like get_archive and list_archives.

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 sealed-vs-open breakdown implies when each code path applies, but there is no explicit statement of when an agent should call verify_archive versus get_archive, check_invariants, or verify_data, and no prerequisites are given.

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