audit_verify

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the core hash-chain verification, lists specific tampering scenarios it can catch, and states the environment-variable fallback. While it doesn't describe return values or side effects, the read-only verification behavior is adequately conveyed.

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 exceptionally tight: three sentences that front-load the verb and resource, then explain the optional parameter and fallback. There is no filler, and each sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's use.

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 tool with only one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, the optional parameter, and the fallback mechanism thoroughly. The only notable gap is the lack of detail about the verification result (e.g., boolean success, status message), but this is a minor omission given the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema.

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%, so the schema already documents expected_head's purpose, format, and fallback. The description repeats this information almost verbatim ('also catches tail truncation, a forged tail-append, or a full ledger replacement'), adding no new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies the verb 'Verify' and the resource 'tamper-evident audit ledger's hash chain,' with an explicit goal to 'PROVE the log is intact.' This precisely differentiates it from sibling tools like audit_entries, which likely list entries rather than verify integrity.

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 provides concrete guidance on when to pass expected_head (to catch tail truncation, forged tail-append, or full replacement) and explains the fallback to PROXIMO_AUDIT_EXPECTED_HEAD. It even contrasts with a forward-walk-only approach, giving a clear use case, though it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools.

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