verify_agent_identities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully discloses behavior: explains three possible statuses (verified, broken, unverifiable) and their meanings, clarifying that 'unverifiable' is a neutral signal. This provides sufficient transparency.

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 paragraph but packs necessary information efficiently. It front-loads the purpose and then details statuses. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points), but still concise and clear.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain return values, which it does by describing the three statuses and their significance. It covers the main use case adequately, though it could mention potential limitations like multiple claims.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the purpose and format of the npub parameter beyond the schema's description, reinforcing what to pass.

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 verb 'Verify' and the resource 'agent's external identity claims'. It distinguishes from siblings like search_agents or get_identity by specifying that it fetches proofs to verify claims.

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?

Explicitly states when to call ('before hiring when trust matters') and when not to call ('do not call while browsing search results'). Also specifies the required parameter: 'Pass an agent npub'.

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