Verify Fidensa Certification Artifact

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds value by detailing what the tool checks (signature, hash, expiry, optional code/file integrity) and highlights the circular nature of the URL parameter. 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?

The description is three sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the main purpose, then details optional capabilities and usage notes. Every sentence earns its place.

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 should explain what the tool returns after verification. It mentions what it checks but not the result format or error conditions. This gap lowers completeness to a 3.

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 context beyond schema by explaining the preference for 'content' over 'url' and that 'content' is for independent offline verification. This extra guidance justifies a score of 4.

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 cryptographic signatures on Fidensa certification artifacts (.cert.json), specifying checks for platform signature, content hash, expiry, and optional code/file integrity. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like verify_file or check_certification.

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 provides clear guidance: recommends using 'content' for true offline verification, notes that 'url' is a convenience but circular, and mentions the API key requirement. It does not explicitly exclude siblings or provide when-not-to-use scenarios, but the context is sufficient for an agent to choose appropriately.

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