verify_asset

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose the key behavior—downloading the asset and comparing its bytes against declared size/sha-256—which is genuinely informative. But it does not describe failure semantics, side effects, network behavior, or how the page signature/publicKeyValue verification fits into the process.

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 a single, tightly crafted sentence with no filler. The primary action ('Download') and verification target ('page-declared size/sha-256') are front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 the 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the core decision a model needs: this tool verifies an asset's bytes against the declaring page's hash. The main gap is the lack of explicit differentiation from verify_manifest, but the description is otherwise sufficient for a focused verification tool.

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 100%, so the parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds a small amount of context by explaining that verification compares bytes to size/sha-256, but it does not meaningfully enhance the parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Download a declared asset and verify its bytes') and names the exact verification targets ('page-declared size/sha-256'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like verify_manifest, which presumably verifies a manifest rather than an asset's bytes.

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 usage is implied: use this tool when an asset is declared on a page and its bytes need integrity verification. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or comparison with the sibling verify_manifest, so the agent must infer the boundary between the two verification tools.

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