verify_proofjson_proof

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the tool is 'supplied_data_only', lists what it does not verify, and warns against over-reliance on 'allow'. This is comprehensive for a verification tool.

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 concise, consisting of three sentences that directly convey purpose, scope, and limitations. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 a single parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool does and its limitations. It covers the core behavior and constraints, though it could mention the return type (e.g., boolean) for full completeness.

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?

Only one parameter 'proof' is present with no schema description (coverage 0%). The description adds some meaning by explaining it is a ProofJSON proof and what it contains (supplied invoice data, context, policy), but lacks detailed structure or formatting guidance. It partially compensates for the schema gap but not fully.

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 purpose: verifying whether a ProofJSON proof is structurally valid and intact. This distinguishes it from sibling tools assess_invoice_before_payment and list_proofjson_packs, which serve different functions.

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 what the tool does and does not do (e.g., does not verify IBAN ownership, sanctions, etc.), providing clear context for when to use it. It also cautions that 'allow is not a guarantee the invoice is safe'. However, it does not explicitly compare to siblings or state when to use alternatives.

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