Verify Certified File Integrity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is clear. Description adds that no API key is required, which is useful but not extensive. Does not disclose error handling, rate limits, or side effects beyond verification.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose and essential usage details. No unnecessary words; every sentence contributes to understanding.

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 verification tool with two required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and usage. However, it does not indicate the return value (e.g., boolean or status message), which would be helpful for an agent.

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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. Description adds value by clarifying that the file_hash is specifically the SHA-256 hash of the capability file and mentions excluding a residual comment line, which is not in the schema description.

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?

Description explicitly states 'Quick file integrity check' and 'verify the file matches what Fidensa certified', clearly identifying the verb (verify) and resource (file integrity). It distinguishes from siblings by noting this is the simplest verification path without needing a .cert.json file.

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?

Provides clear when-to-use context: pass SHA-256 hash and capability_id for a simple verification. States 'This is the simplest verification path — no .cert.json needed' and 'No API key required', implying this is for quick checks versus more complex alternatives. Does not explicitly exclude other scenarios but implies its niche.

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