verify_audit_integrity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond them: it explains the per-row check against stored HMACs and states exactly what comes back (valid/invalid/total counts plus an overall integrity status). It stops short of saying what an invalid result means operationally or whether verification is bounded/paginated on large logs.

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 with the core action and followed by mechanism and return shape in two short sentences. The first two sentences overlap somewhat ('verify HMAC signatures on all entries' vs 'checks each row against its stored HMAC'), so a word or two could be trimmed, but nothing is materially wasted.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing results and does so (counts plus overall status), which is the key missing piece an agent would otherwise lack. What remains unexplained is scope/cost on very large audit logs and the semantic meaning of a failing overall status.

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 no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and nothing here misleads about inputs.

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 and resource (verify HMAC signatures on safety audit log entries) and specifies the mechanism (per-row comparison against stored signatures). It is clear on its own, but it does not differentiate itself from adjacent siblings such as safety_audit, export_audit_log, or verify_provenance_integrity, which an agent must disambiguate on its own.

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 stated goal ('detect tampering') implies the usage context, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g., use safety_audit to read entries, this tool to validate them). The agent can infer intent but must guess the boundary against sibling verification and audit tools.

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