verify_attestation

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

Annotations already establish read-only, open-world, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: it's free, requires no wallet, returns specific verification artifacts, and the Merkle proof depends on batch sealing. This goes beyond the structured annotations by disclosing operational conditions (sealing) and cost implications.

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 a single, dense sentence that front-loads the key value proposition ('FREE — verify any attestation') and packs in usage instructions, return contents, and a caveat (sealing). It is efficient and well-structured, with no fluff, though slightly packed with clauses.

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 read-only verification tool with 6 params (1 required) and no output schema, the description covers what inputs to provide, what results to expect, and a timing constraint (batch sealed). It does not describe error cases or output formatting, but given the tool's simplicity and the annotations, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke it 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so individual descriptions are clear. The description adds semantic value by clarifying the 'either/or' relationship between content fields (prompt, response, model_id) and content_hash, and by implying client_timestamp affects the hash. This logical grouping is not explicit in the schema alone, so the description earns a boost above baseline.

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 the tool's verb ('verify') and resource ('any attestation issued by the notary'), and specifies it returns signature check, hash comparison, and Merkle proof. This distinguishes it from siblings like notarize_inference (creation), get_receipt (retrieval), and notary_pubkey (key access) without ambiguity.

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?

It explicitly instructs how to call it: supply attestation_id plus either original content (prompt, response, model_id) or content_hash. It also notes the batch must be sealed for the Merkle proof and 'No wallet needed' as a prerequisite. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the context makes it clear this is the verification tool versus the other siblings.

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