get_verification_template

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does add real context: drafts are review-gated, never self-canonical, and a human approval is the curation act. However, it doesn't state that this specific tool is a side-effect-free read that makes no writes, which is the most load-bearing fact for an agent deciding whether calling it is safe.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the governance caveats. The governance sentences arguably drift beyond the tool itself, but they are short and informative, so waste is minimal.

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 description needn't explain the returned skeleton, and with zero parameters there is no argument surface to document. What remains missing is a statement of the tool's own side-effect profile, which matters given the absence of annotations.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to clarify. The empty schema is consistent with a static template retrieval and the description introduces no parameter ambiguity.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Return the canonical verification-contract skeleton.' This is clearly distinct from the sibling get_verification (which presumably returns a verification, not a template) and from the submit_* siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling to contrast with, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Gives clear context for use: 'so you can draft a new contract in the exact format the layer expects,' which tells the agent this is a pre-drafting step. No exclusions or named alternatives are offered (e.g. it never says when to prefer get_verification instead), so it falls short of the explicit when/when-not bar.

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