owp_verify_signature

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

With no annotations, the description provides behavioral specificity by detailing required fields in signed_payload ('must contain signature_alg, signer_key_id, digest, and signature') and describing the exact return values. However, it does not disclose error behavior for invalid input (e.g., malformed JSON, missing fields, bad base64url), which is a minor gap.

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 well-structured with an opening sentence, a compact Args section, and a Returns section. Every sentence is informative and there is no redundant text.

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?

The description covers parameters, return values, and signed_payload requirements, making it usable for invocation. However, it lacks error-handling details and does not clarify how object_type is used in the verification process. Given the tool's simplicity, these are minor omissions and the description is mostly 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?

The input schema provides no field descriptions, but the description explains each parameter: object_type as 'the canonical domain of the object', signed_payload as 'JSON string of the signed payload' with required fields, and public_key_b64url as 'the signer's public key as base64url'. This fully compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

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 'Verify an Ed25519 signature on a signed OpenWorkProof payload' clearly states the action (verify) and the resource (Ed25519 signature on OpenWorkProof payload). This distinguishes it from sibling verification tools like owp_verify_work_order and owp_verify_nested_claim, which focus on different verification aspects.

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 implies the tool is used for verifying Ed25519 signatures, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives such as owp_verify_work_order or owp_verify_nested_claim. There are no usage exclusions or comparisons, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name and description.

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