delimit_evidence_verify

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

The description discloses side effects ('read-only on the evidence store'), access gating ('gated by require_premium'), and backend calls. However, it lacks details on the verification process (e.g., what happens on tamper detection) and any potential error states. Without annotations, it carries full burden but does a solid job.

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 concise (6 lines) and well-structured with clear sections: purpose, when to use/not use, sibling contrast, and side effects. Every sentence adds value with no 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 verification tool with an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, usage, side effects, and sibling relationships. It leaves no major gaps given the existing schema and tool complexity.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. It mentions bundle_id and bundle_path in the usage context but does not clarify semantics like format or constraints.

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's purpose: 'Verify the integrity of an evidence bundle.' It specifies the verb (verify), the resource (evidence bundle), and distinguishes it from siblings like delimit_evidence_collect and delimit_ledger, ensuring the agent knows exactly what the tool does and how it differs.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('replay or audit') and when not to use ('to capture new evidence' or 'to query the contract ledger'), with specific alternatives provided (delimit_evidence_collect, delimit_ledger). This gives clear guidance for the agent.

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