verify_vc

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It details the verification process: resolving public key from DID document, rebuilding signed bytes, checking Ed25519 signature, and checking validity window. It also notes it works for any issuer registered via get_did. However, it does not describe error conditions or edge cases.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by detailed process and constraints. Each sentence adds value without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 no output schema, the description provides the return object shape {valid, issuer, subjectId, reason}. It explains the verification steps and clarifies scope (authenticity vs. trust). This gives an AI agent complete context to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema only defines 'vc' as an object with no constraints (0% schema coverage). The description adds significant meaning by explaining which parts of the VC are used (proof.proofValue, validFrom, validUntil) and that the proof is reset to empty string for verification. This compensates for the sparse schema.

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 it verifies the issuer signature and validity window of a Verifiable Credential, specifying the verb (verify) and resource (VC). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_did and resolve_did by focusing on credential validation rather than DID resolution.

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 explains when to use the tool (to confirm authenticity of a VC's signature and validity window) and explicitly states what it does NOT do (assess issuer trust/authorization), providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools for trust assessment.

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