verify_agent_scope

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses key checks performed but omits return format or behavior (e.g., error handling, whether it blocks or just returns a status). Without output schema, agent lacks full behavioral insights.

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?

Two efficient sentences: first states core purpose, second enumerates checks and gives a usage directive. No redundancy or fluff.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete for an authorization check but lacks return value specification. Agent must infer whether response is boolean or detailed object. Missing error scenarios.

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 covers all 3 parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond schema, e.g., clarifying the 'action' parameter's role. No significant enhancement.

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 the tool checks authorization for a specific action or endpoint, and lists specific verifications (X.509 certificate, scope, financial limits, revocation). It is distinct from sibling tools (audit_log_append for logging, check_risk_score for risk scoring).

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?

Explicitly instructs 'Call this BEFORE executing any action that might exceed scope — not after.', providing strong usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare to sibling tools.

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