ghg-ledger__verify_result

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool recomputes audit hash and conservation checks and flags tampering or stale factors. This is good transparency for a verification tool, though it omits details like side effects or permissions, which are likely minimal.

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?

The description is concise with a front-loaded domain context and a clear action. It is well-structured but the bracketed prefix could be trimmed without loss of core meaning.

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?

Given the tool has a single parameter and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it explains the purpose, input, and what the tool detects. It could be improved by briefly describing the return value, but it is adequate for its simplicity.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description explains that the 'result_json' parameter should contain the prior result object as JSON. This adds sufficient meaning for the agent to correctly pass the input, compensating for the schema gap.

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 verb 'recompute' and the resource 'prior inventory's audit hash and conservation checks', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like ghg-ledger__calculate_inventory which creates new inventories.

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 description tells exactly when to use this tool: to verify a prior inventory result by passing it as JSON. It implies usage for detecting tampering or stale factor lineage, but does not explicitly contrast with other verification tools like compute-ledger__verify_attestation, so it's not perfectly explicit.

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