costwright_verify

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully covers behavior. It clearly states the operation is a read-only verification (no key needed), returns state, signature check, and certified result. It does not mention idempotency or error handling, but for a simple verification tool, this is adequate.

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 well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys purpose, scope, and output. No extraneous words; every part contributes value.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what the tool does, how it is used (public, by ID), and what it returns (state, signature, result). It is complete for its complexity.

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% with a clear description 'The certificate id to verify.' The tool's description adds no additional meaning to the parameter beyond what the schema provides, thus baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'verify', the resource 'costwright certificate by id', and adds context 'public, no key'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like costwright_certify (issuance) and costwright_pubkey (key retrieval).

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 indicates this tool is for verifying a specific certificate ID and notes it is public without a key, implying no authentication needed. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus its sibling 'costwright_check', which might have overlapping functionality.

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