Verify audit chain

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

Annotations already indicate read-only behavior. The description adds valuable context: it walks the chain, reports coverage (first/last event ID), and details failure indicators (error, first_invalid_id). No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with action and target, followed by concise return field details. No unnecessary words.

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 single-optional-parameter verification tool, the description fully covers purpose, return fields, and failure modes. Output schema exists but description compensates adequately.

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%, and the description adds no extra meaning beyond what the input schema provides for the single optional 'database' parameter. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verifies the HMAC-SHA256 signature chain of persisted audit events in a specific table, and specifies the return object with fields. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_audit_events.

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 usage for verifying audit chain integrity but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or usage contexts.

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