notary__verify

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states 'independently verify' suggesting a read-only operation, but does not disclose if authentication or specific permissions are needed, nor any other behavioral traits like side effects or rate limits.

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, consisting of two short sentences. The bracketed category is a minor distraction but overall efficient. It fronts the action part well.

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 two parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the main function. However, it omits details about the return value (e.g., boolean or details) and prerequisites (e.g., must have a revealed commitment). Somewhat complete but gaps remain.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate. It explains 'content_digest' as the 'digest of content you received', but does not elaborate on 'commitment_id' beyond its name. This adds minimal value over the schema.

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 a revealed commitment and optionally checks against a content digest. It distinguishes from siblings like 'notary__commit' (creates commitments) and 'notary__reveal' (reveals commitments).

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 implies use after a reveal, mentioning 'independently verify a revealed commitment'. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use or not, and no alternatives are mentioned. The usage context is implied but not clearly delineated.

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