compute-ledger__verify_attestation

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'recomputing the entry hash' but does not state whether this is a read-only operation, permissions needed, or behavior on failure. Insufficient for a verification tool.

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?

Description is one sentence and concise, but the prefixed bracket note [compute-ledger — ...] is redundant with the tool name prefix. Still, it is efficient and 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?

For a verification tool with one complex parameter and no output schema, the description is incomplete. Missing details on input structure, return value, error cases, or example usage.

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?

The single parameter 'attestation' is an object with no structure described. Schema coverage is 0%. The description adds no detail about required fields or format, relying entirely on the parameter name.

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 the tool verifies an attestation by recomputing the entry hash, with a domain prefix. It distinguishes from other verify_attestation tools via the compute-ledger context, but could be more explicit about what 'attestation' means here.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like trust__verify_attestation or erc8004__verify_attestation. The description does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions.

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