verify_step

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the ledger is tamper-evident and SHA-256 based and that steps must be submitted before being stated, which is genuine context. It is silent on failure semantics (does a mismatched 'compute' value get rejected or merely recorded?), on whether sessions must pre-exist, and on the return value.

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 short sentences: the action and its ordering constraint first, then a compact enumeration of the supported step kinds. Every clause carries information; nothing is padding.

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 nested-object tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should close more gaps than it does. Step payload shapes are covered well, but failure behavior, session prerequisites, and whether verification actually gates the call remain unstated.

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 baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond the schema: the schema only says 'Step object containing kind and kind-specific parameters', while the description enumerates the four kinds and their exact payload shapes. That is material added meaning, though it is not structured as a real enum.

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: submit a single reasoning/math step to a tamper-evident SHA-256 session ledger. That is far more informative than the bare name 'verify_step'. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the compute or solve_equation siblings, even though its 'compute'/'solve' step kinds appear to overlap with them.

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?

'before stating it' gives a real timing rule: log the step before you assert it. Beyond that, there is no when-not guidance, no statement of how this differs from calling compute or solve_equation directly, and no note on what to do when a step fails verification.

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