owp_run_verification

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a reasonable job: it discloses that commits append to a SQLite ledger, that prepare_decision returns an unsigned draft without committing, and that the tool never retries an indeterminate commit. Those are meaningful behavioral traits beyond the name. It still doesn't cover authorization requirements, idempotency of repeated commits, or what happens on a failed validation.

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 purpose statement is front-loaded and the per-operation breakdown is efficient, with every sentence contributing. Slightly awkward line wrapping and a missing transition between the purpose sentence and the operation rules cost it the top score, but there is no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the description covers the draft-versus-commit distinction plus retry behavior. For a mutation tool with zero annotations, though, missing payload/ledger format and failure/error semantics leave it adequate rather than complete.

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 usefully documents the operation parameter's three valid values even though the schema declares no enum, which is real added meaning. But the ledger and payload parameters get no explanation of expected format or content, leaving two of three parameters fully undocumented.

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 first sentence names a concrete verb and resource: writing verification results or signed decisions to the ledger, or preparing a draft. The three operation modes (commit_arm, prepare_decision, commit_decision) are then spelled out, so an agent can tell what the tool does. It falls short of 5 because it doesn't distinguish itself from related siblings like owp_sign_payload or owp_verify_signature.

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 states which operation values are allowed and what each does, which implicitly guides selection among the three modes. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings such as owp_sign_payload or owp_get_decision, and no prerequisites or exclusion conditions are stated.

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