verify

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

The description discloses that verification is local and offline, which is a meaningful behavioral trait. The include_proof parameter description adds valuable behavioral context about how to recover a clean proof copy and warns against re-proving. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and could have disclosed more about failure modes or side effects, though the core behavior is well covered.

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 main description is a single, dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and key constraint. The include_proof parameter description is longer but earns its place by explaining a non-obvious workflow and warning against a common mistake. No wasted 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 verification tool with 5 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains the core operation, the offline nature, and the nuanced include_proof behavior. It could have mentioned what the tool returns on success/failure, but the absence of an output schema and the clear purpose make this a minor gap.

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 schema already documents all parameters. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the purpose of include_proof in a real workflow (reading a clean copy back off disk, avoiding re-proving). This goes beyond the schema's basic 'Return the verified package including the raw base64 proof' and justifies a score above the baseline 3.

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 states a specific verb ('Check'), a specific resource ('UltraHonk proof package'), the method ('locally against the verifying key using bb.js'), and a key constraint ('without network access'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like prove and status.

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 when to use this tool: when you need to verify a proof package locally without network access. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context of siblings (prove, status) and the clear local/offline scope provide adequate guidance. The include_proof parameter also gives practical guidance about when to use it (reading a clean copy back off disk).

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