ep_verify_zk_proof

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the tool returns current validity without revealing transaction details. However, it does not describe error handling (e.g., invalid proof_id), performance, or whether the proof is checked on-chain.

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?

Three concise sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the action and result, the second explains the privacy guarantee, and the third gives a usage scenario. Excellent front-loading.

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 simple 1-param tool with no output schema, the description covers the core function, privacy behavior, and appropriate use case. It could be improved by mentioning the return type, but overall adequate.

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% with a clear description of proof_id format (ep_zkp_...). The description adds no new parameter-level detail beyond emphasizing privacy, so it meets the baseline for complete 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?

Clearly states the tool verifies a ZK proof by proof_id and returns validity status. Distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing the privacy-preserving nature (unlike ep_verify_commit which likely reveals data).

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 advises using this tool when dealing with entities in privacy-sensitive industries who cannot share raw history. Provides strong contextual guidance, but does not explicitly list when not to use or suggest alternatives like ep_verify_commit.

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