verify_data

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well: it explains the hash recomputation, what a false result means (data modified post-preparation), and the downstream consequence for trials. It stops short of stating auth needs, idempotency, or that the operation is a pure read.

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 purpose, then the return shape, then the failure consequence — a sensible order with no filler. The Returns line partially duplicates the existing output schema, which is the only minor redundancy.

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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema and no annotations, this is nearly complete: purpose, result interpretation, and consequence are all covered. The main gap is the lack of explicit routing against verification siblings.

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% and the single parameter is already self-describing (the DataRef ID from prepare_data), so baseline 3 applies. The description adds no format or sourcing detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 (data provenance) plus the mechanism (re-computing the hash), which distinguishes it from the similarly-named sibling verify_archive. An agent can tell what it does without opening the 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?

Usage is only implied: referencing the DataRef from prepare_data and noting that a failed check invalidates trials hints at context, but the description never states when to call this versus verify_archive or other verification siblings. No explicit when/when-not guidance.

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