owp_soc_verify_bundle

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that: an 8 MiB per-input cap, the UNKNOWN-on-missing-pin behavior, the warning that FAILED/UNKNOWN is not acceptance, and the explicit 'No filesystem writes' guarantee.

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, then a compact block of constraints. Every sentence carries information (size limit, UNKNOWN semantics, independence caveat, no writes); only the 'caller-supplied pins do not prove organizational independence' line is slightly redundant with the preceding sentence.

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 need not be explained, and the description covers the remaining essentials: input format and size, the trust model, the meaning of UNKNOWN/FAILED, and the absence of side effects. An agent has enough to call this correctly and interpret the result.

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 carry the load. It does establish that all inputs are JSON strings capped at 8 MiB and that trusted_keys_json/trusted_checkpoints_json are the 'separately acquired' pins, but it never describes the expected structure of bundle_json or the pin formats, leaving the largest gap unaddressed.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Verify a reference SOC bundle using separately acquired expected trust pins.' The qualifier 'reference SOC bundle' plus 'trust pins' distinguishes it from the sibling owp_verify_surface_bundle and from signature-level tools like owp_verify_signature, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Gives real usage context: omitted external keys or checkpoint pins yield UNKNOWN, and copying pins from the same bundle only tests consistency rather than independence. That tells the agent how to supply inputs meaningfully, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over sibling verification tools.

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