Assess Action (Signed Trust Verdict)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, lowering the burden; the description adds value by detailing the signed proof composition (riskPayloadJws + signingKeyId), the verification path via @fidacy/verify against the engine JWKS, and the default engine URL. This provides meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence earns its place: purpose, proof/verification mechanics, key parameter semantics, and usage positioning. It is dense without being bloated.

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 tool with 6 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior well: what is returned (signed verdict with riskPayloadJws + signingKeyId), where it runs (live engine), and its role among sibling tools. It is incomplete only on the four ancillary parameters, which prevents a perfect score.

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 property descriptions are 0% covered, so the description must compensate. It adds real meaning for the two central parameters: kind (enum values, acting as a discriminator) and mandate ("the action/mandate object for that kind"). However, four remaining parameters (a2a, mandateType, idempotencyKey, spendingMandate) receive no explanation, including nested objects, leaving a partial compensation 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?

The description opens with a specific verb-resource-scope statement: "Return a SIGNED Fidacy trust verdict from the live engine... for a proposed action," which clearly states what the tool does. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly labeling this as "the verdict (advisory) layer" that "moves no money," contrasting with the payment-firewall tools.

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?

The final sentence gives explicit usage boundaries: this is the advisory/verdict layer, it moves no money, and it complements the payment-firewall tools (request_payment et al.). This effectively tells the agent when to use it (for signed advisory verdicts) and when not to (when money needs to move), while naming an alternative tool family.

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