verify_evidence

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool invokes a pinned version and retains a structured receipt, which gives some behavioral context (reproducibility, output retention), but it does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, or whether this is a read-only operation.

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 concise sentence with no filler, but it is under-specified. It is short enough to be front-loaded, yet it leaves out critical semantics, so it is not efficiently informative.

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?

The existence of an output schema covers return values, but the description lacks context about the tool's role in the evidence workflow, when to call it, or what the receipt contains. Combined with zero parameter descriptions, the overall context is incomplete.

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 0%, and the description offers no explanation of what request_id or caller_token represent. The description adds no value beyond the parameter names, leaving the agent without sufficient information to populate them correctly.

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 says "Invoke pinned agent-evidence 0.6.0" which gives a verb and resource, but it does not explicitly state that the tool verifies evidence. The purpose is implied by the tool name, not clearly described. It also does not distinguish from sibling tools like attach_evidence or evaluate_action_gate.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool or when to use alternatives. The description provides no context signal such as prerequisites, workflow steps, or exclusions.

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