quantaoptima_audit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses HMAC-SHA256 hash-chaining, tamper-evident behavior ('any tampering invalidates subsequent signatures'), and the Pro license requirement, which is substantial behavioral context.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then cryptographic detail, license, and args. The Stripe URL is lengthy but necessary for the license requirement; overall efficient and well-structured.

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?

Has an output schema, so return values need not be explained. The description covers purpose, behavior, prerequisites, and the sole parameter, though it omits sibling differentiation.

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 0% with one parameter. The description explains export_path as an optional file path to export audit JSON, adding clear meaning beyond the schema's type-only definition.

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 'cryptographic audit trail from the last optimization', but does not differentiate from the sibling quantaoptima_verify_chain. An agent can understand the purpose, though sibling ambiguity remains.

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 phrase 'from the last optimization' implies use after an optimization, and the Pro license requirement is a prerequisite. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like verify_chain or chain_status.

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