prooflink.verify_chain

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses read-only nature, safety for production, scope requirement, and governance by Arbiter policy. The alias disclosure adds transparency about tool equivalence, which is valuable.

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?

Three concise sentences with front-loaded 'Read-only audit scope'. Every sentence earns its place, covering purpose, safety, scope, and governance without fluff.

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?

The tool is simple (2 optional params, no output schema). Description covers purpose, safety, scope, and alias, which is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke correctly. Minor gap: return structure not described, but not essential for this read-only tool.

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 description coverage is 100%: both parameters have detailed descriptions (limit with default and max, container optional). The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics, so baseline of 3 applies.

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 clearly states the tool verifies the ProofLink receipt chain for EU AI Act Article 12, CISO, and auditor workflows. It also explicitly identifies as an alias for get_receipt_chain, distinguishing it from receipt-verification tools like verify_receipt and search_receipts.

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 usage context: read-only audit scope, safe for production API keys without admin rights, and requires specific scope prooflink.verify_chain. It doesn't explicitly say when not to use, but the read-only and alias framing strongly implies the intended scenario.

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