quantity-takeoff__verify_result

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

With no annotations, the description provides some behavioral context (recomputing verification data), but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, modifies state, or requires specific permissions. The term 'auditable' hints at non-destructive verification.

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 and includes a domain tag for context, but the technical jargon ('pack currency', 'QT9 unit-resolved conservation') could be simplified without losing precision.

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 simple schema, the description covers what the parameter expects. However, it omits what the tool returns (e.g., success/failure status or verification report) and does not explain key concepts like 'notary payload', leaving gaps for agents unfamiliar with the domain.

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 'result_json' has no schema description, but the instructions clearly explain it should be a JSON string of a result object. This adds necessary meaning beyond the bare 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 it recomputes a takeoff audit hash and other verification components. It distinguishes from sibling 'calculate_takeoff' by implying verification of existing results, but uses heavy jargon that may confuse general agents.

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?

It explicitly says 'Pass the prior result object as JSON,' indicating the tool expects a result from a prior calculation. However, it does not specify when to use it versus alternative tools like 'calculate_takeoff' or any prerequisites.

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