quipu_verifier_authorized

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that this consults a registry and is the discovery half of a governance flow, which is useful framing, but it says nothing about whether the result is a boolean, a list of authorizers, or how stale/absent registry entries are handled.

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 compact sentences that front-load the registry check before the rationale. Efficient overall, though 'Phase-0' is unexplained jargon that carries meaning only to an already-initiated agent.

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 query with no output schema, the description should convey what comes back; it asks a yes/no question ('may this verifier attest this predicate?') yet also promises to 'learn who is authorized', leaving the return shape ambiguous. The essentials for invocation are present, but an agent cannot predict the response.

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%, so verifier, predicate, tx and signed_at are all documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond restating the verifier/predicate pairing and never mentions the temporal parameters tx or signed_at, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('the Phase-0 verifier registry') and frames the exact question answered: whether a verifier may attest a given predicate. The 'discovery half of the governance gate' phrasing implicitly distinguishes it from the verification-side siblings such as quipu_verdict_verify, though no sibling is named outright.

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?

Gives a clear use context: call it to learn who is authorized before trusting or requesting an attestation. That is a genuine when-to-use signal, but there is no explicit when-not or named alternative comparison, so it stops short of a 5.

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