verify_output

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It explains the verification behavior and parameter roles but does not describe side effects, return values, or error handling. Adequate but not detailed.

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 clear sentences plus an Args list. Efficient and front-loaded with the main purpose. Could be slightly more structured, but no 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?

For a verification tool with two params and existing output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and arguments. It doesn't explain the output, but that is handled by the output schema. Adequate 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?

Schema has no descriptions (0% coverage). Description adds meaning: signature_id is from complete_action or sign_action, expected_output is the string to verify against the signed hash. This significantly aids understanding.

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 what the tool does: verify a signature and confirm the signed payload's output hash matches expected_output. It distinguishes from sibling 'verify_signature' by specifying the output verification step.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use to detect post-sign tampering of an agent's reported result', providing clear context. Does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the purpose is well-defined.

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