securitypass_verify_scope

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the verification methods and a gating requirement, but it does not disclose failure behavior, whether it mutates state, permission needs, rate limits, or what a successful/failed verification returns. This is a significant gap for a no-annotation tool.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the key precondition. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin. It omits return behavior, most parameter semantics, and operational details needed for an agent to call this verification tool correctly.

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 only 43%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It only loosely references the proof_method enum values (DNS TXT, /.well-known) without naming the parameter or covering the other two enum options, and says nothing about target_url, contract_id, expected_token, or proof_timeout_ms.

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 states a specific verb (Verify) and resource (scope authorisation for a target) with proof methods, so an agent can tell what the tool does. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the other securitypass_* siblings, 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?

The second sentence gives a clear precondition: it is required before any active probe runs. That is explicit usage context, though it does not name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, so it falls short of a 5.

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