_verify_signature

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

With no annotations provided, the description must bear the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states the action (verify) but does not mention return values (e.g., boolean), error handling, side effects (none), or required input formats. The presence of an output schema implies structured output, but the description omits any details.

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 extremely short (one sentence) but under-specified. True conciseness would convey all critical information in minimal words; this only gives the purpose, omitting essential details about behavior and parameters, making it insufficient.

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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters, 0% schema coverage, an output schema, and no annotations, the description is wholly inadequate. It provides no context about verification process, encoding, curve types, hash functions, or expected output, leaving the agent with little to no guidance.

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. It fails to add any meaning to the 6 parameters, not explaining what public_key, signature, data, curve, hashfunc, or sigdecode represent. The agent gets no help understanding required formats or the role of optional parameters beyond their names.

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 clearly states it verifies an ECDSA signature, specifying the verb 'verify' and the resource 'ECDSA signature'. However, it does not distinguish from the sibling tool _verify_digest_signature, which likely verifies a pre-hashed digest instead of raw data.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when to choose this over _verify_digest_signature or other sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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