Verify an Ed25519 audit signature

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

The annotations already establish read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: RFC 8785 JCS canonicalization of the payload, Ed25519 signature verification, optional SHA-256 verification, and the guarantee that no model call occurs. No contradiction with annotations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys read-only/offline status, the algorithm, the payload normalization behavior, and the no-model-call guarantee. Every phrase earns its place with little redundancy.

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 rich nested schema, output schema, and safety annotations, the description sufficiently completes the picture for selecting and invoking the tool. Minor gaps remain: it never explicitly routes between sibling tools, and the 'optional SHA-256' is slightly underspecified, but these do not prevent correct use.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for missing parameter documentation. It usefully explains that the payload is RFC 8785 JCS canonicalized and that a SHA-256 is optionally verified, which maps to expectedPayloadSha256. However, it does not precisely explain the semantics of sigB64/publicKeyPem or what the optional hash is over, leaving some burden on the schema names and the agent's inference.

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 states a specific action and resource: offline verification of verifier_platform's Ed25519 audit signature, with optional SHA-256 verification. It also differentiates from the likely model-calling sibling verifier_platform_verify by explicitly saying '不会调用模型' (does not call a model).

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: as a read-only, offline signature verification operation that does not invoke a model. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it stops short of the strongest usage guidance, but the intended use case is clear.

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