verify_record

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is settled. The description adds genuinely non-derivable context: the answer contains purposes, counterparties and memos authored by third parties and must be treated as data, not instructions. It does not describe what an invalid or unsigned record yields, which is the main remaining behavioral gap.

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 sentences, trigger first, safety caveat second, with no filler. The prompt-injection warning is placed after the call condition so the routing decision is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers when to call, what is checked, and how to treat returned content. It stops short of describing the shape of the verification result (valid/invalid, error on missing record), which an agent would benefit from knowing.

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% and the single required parameter record_id is undocumented anywhere. The description implies it identifies a record in 'your company's book' but adds no format, source, or lookup guidance. A 3 reflects that the identifier is largely self-evident but the description does nothing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 pair (verify a record) plus the concrete checks performed: integrity of the entry in the company's book and signature by its key. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_records or get_intent, which retrieve rather than attest.

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?

"Call this when someone asks whether a record is genuine" gives a clear triggering condition tied to a user question, which is more actionable than a generic description. It does not explicitly exclude adjacent cases (e.g., when to use list_records or check_payment instead), so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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