iota_verify

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: read-only, no wallet needed, $0.003 USDC per call, p99 latency 3000ms, plus what is returned (stored hash/data, ledger creation time, lock status indicating mutability, owner, and a matches boolean). Cost, latency, safety profile and mutability semantics are all disclosed.

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?

A single tight paragraph: purpose and inputs first, then return values, then read-only/cost/latency. No sentence is filler and the most decision-relevant facts are front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields, and it covers the cost/latency/safety envelope. The remaining gap is failure behavior: all five parameters are optional, yet the description never says what happens if neither object_id nor transaction is given, nor what a not-found result looks like.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it frames object_id and transaction as mutually alternative identifiers for the same target, and clarifies that text/SHA-256/URL are the content-to-compare options. That said, it doesn't state whether a content parameter is optional or what 'matches' resolves to when none is supplied.

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 (Verify) and resource (an IOTA notarization), and immediately scopes it to any notarization on IOTA mainnet, official package, ours or anyone's. This clearly separates it from the sibling iota_notarize (the write counterpart) without the agent needing to open either schema.

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?

Explains the invocation condition well: supply an object id OR a transaction digest, and optionally content to compare. It does not explicitly name the alternative (e.g. 'to create a notarization use iota_notarize') or state when verification is unnecessary, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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