It Verify Archive Integrity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description clearly states the core behavior: recomputing SHA-256 and comparing against the stored hash. However, it does not disclose what happens on mismatch (e.g., error vs. boolean result), whether the operation is read-only, or any side effects. The output schema exists but the description doesn't explain the return value semantics beyond the hash comparison.

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?

The description is a single, focused sentence that front-loads the action and method. Every word earns its place: 'Verify', 'integrity', 'archived document', 'recomputing SHA-256', 'comparing against stored hash'. No filler or 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?

The tool has a single parameter, an output schema, and no annotations. The description explains the core verification logic but doesn't cover the return value semantics (e.g., what the output schema contains, how success/failure is signaled). Given the output schema exists, the description needn't fully explain return values, but it should at least hint at the outcome representation. The description is adequate for a simple verification tool but leaves some gaps around error handling and result interpretation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The description mentions 'an archived document' and the hash comparison, which implies document_id identifies the archived document. However, it doesn't add detail about the format of document_id (e.g., UUID, internal ID, or archive reference) or any constraints. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 ('Verify'), a specific resource ('an archived document'), and the exact method ('recomputing its SHA-256 hash and comparing against the stored hash'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like it__archive_invoice, it__retrieve_archived_invoice, and it__list_archived_invoices, which perform different operations on archived documents.

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 the tool is used to check the integrity of an archived document, which is a clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites (e.g., the document must already be archived, or the document_id must reference an existing archive entry). It also doesn't state what to do if the hash comparison fails.

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