verify_chain

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description goes beyond by explaining exactly what the tool does behaviorally: recomputing the hash-chain, validating monotonic timestamps, and what it detects. It also adds cost/access constraints ('FREE, public', 'no api_key'), which is useful context beyond the structured annotations.

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, information-dense sentence. It front-loads with 'FREE, public' and then packs the core purpose, security guarantee, and access requirement without any filler or repetition. Every phrase earns its place.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the essential context: what it computes, the guarantee it provides, and the public access model. The lack of an output schema is not a significant gap because the description implies an audit/verification result. Slightly more detail on the return value could push it to 5.

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 for the single parameter (pid) is 100%, and its description is already adequate ('The pid from open_precommitment'). The tool description does not add further parameter-level detail, but since the schema carries the full burden, a baseline 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 a specific verb ('recompute') and resource ('pre-commitment's report hash-chain') and defines the exact purpose: checking timestamp monotonicity to detect backfill, reorder, edit, or deletion. This distinguishes it from sibling verify_* tools, which audit other aspects.

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 establishes clear context for use: 'Anyone can audit that a track record's timeline was never rewritten, with no api_key.' It implies this tool is for public auditing, but does not explicitly mention when to use it instead of alternatives or when not to use it. The context is strong, but exclusions are absent.

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