waxseal.approval.verify

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that verification checks signature, expiry, and optionally fingerprint, and returns valid: true only when conditions are met. This is transparent, though it could mention read-only nature or potential error responses.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: first sets purpose and usage context, second details verification steps, third defines the success condition. Every sentence is informative and essential.

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 two parameters and no output schema, the description covers input semantics and the return condition for success. However, it does not describe error responses or the shape of failure, which would complete the picture for an agent.

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 input schema has 100% coverage, and the description adds value by linking approval_token to its creation (waxseal.approval.create) and explaining expected_fingerprint's conditional behavior. This goes beyond the schema's bare descriptions.

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 the tool verifies a WaxSeal approval token, specifying the action (verify), resource (approval token), and what it checks (cryptographic signature, expiry, optionally fingerprint). It distinguishes from siblings like waxseal.approval.create and waxseal.signature.verify by focusing on approval tokens specifically.

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 explicitly advises using this tool 'before an AI agent executes a high-risk or irreversible action,' providing clear context. While it does not list alternatives or when not to use, the context is sufficient for an agent to decide.

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