Verify Credential

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It clearly states the tool reads a ledger object (read-only) and checks existence, acceptance, and expiry relative to validated ledger close time. This discloses key behaviors and side-effect-free nature. However, it does not mention any network requirements or potential performance implications.

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?

Single sentence that is clear and front-loaded with the main action. It could be slightly more concise by splitting into two sentences, but it is efficient and contains 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?

No output schema, so description partially covers returns (existence, acceptance, expiry). It mentions relative to validated ledger close time, which adds context. Could be more complete by explicitly stating the return format. Given three parameters and a read operation, it is fairly complete.

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% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds context about what it does with the parameters (reads the credential object), but does not add new constraints or format beyond the schema. Baseline 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?

Description clearly states 'Read an XLS-70 Credential ledger object and report whether it exists, has been accepted, and is expired'. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the result is well-defined. It distinguishes from siblings like credential_list (which lists credentials) and credential_prepare_accept (which prepares acceptance).

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The description implies this tool is for checking the status of a specific credential, but does not compare to sibling tools like credential_list or account_identity_summary. Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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