ghg-ledger__verify_result

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool recomputes checks and flags tampering or stale factor lineage. No side effects mentioned, which is appropriate for a verification-only tool. No contradictions.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with domain context. Every sentence adds value: first sets context and purpose, second gives instruction and expected outcome. No wasted words.

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 simple verification tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does and what to pass. It explains the verification behavior and flagging outcome, though an agent might wonder about the return format.

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%, so description must compensate. It specifies that result_json is the 'prior result object as JSON', adding essential context beyond the raw schema. While it does not detail the exact structure, it gives sufficient guidance for the single parameter.

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 it recomputes audit hash and conservation checks for a prior GHG inventory, using the specific verb 'Recompute' and resource 'prior inventory's audit hash and conservation checks'. 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 the agent to pass the prior result as JSON and explains the outcome (tampering flagged). It implies usage after having a prior inventory, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast with alternatives like calculate_inventory.

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