Verify Evidence

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (recompute hash, compare to the value stored at registration) and implies a non-destructive read, but never states permissions, whether the result is persisted or logged, or what happens on a mismatch.

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?

Three short sentences with the mechanism front-loaded and no filler. The phrase "critical forensic operation" is mildly editorial but harmless, so structure is strong though not perfect.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return shape need not be explained, and the one parameter is fully covered. The description is sufficient to call the tool, though it leaves the mismatch behavior and read/write semantics implicit.

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 100% and the single evidence_id parameter is already fully documented in the schema (evidence number or UUID). The prose adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb+resource (verify evidence) and even names the mechanism (re-computing its SHA-256 hash) plus the goal (detect tampering). This clearly distinguishes it from the read-only siblings get_evidence and list_evidence, which retrieve rather than validate.

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 implies usage ("critical forensic operation to detect evidence tampering"), which tells an agent the context in which it matters. However, it names no alternatives or preconditions, e.g. whether get_evidence must be called first or when verification is unnecessary.

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