stratverity_verify_hash

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It indicates only that the tool 'verifies' and does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether it makes a network call, what happens for an invalid or unknown hash, or what response is returned.

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 a single, well-structured sentence with no filler words. The action, resource, and method are all present and the essential 'SHA-256 hash' constraint is included.

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 single-parameter tool with no nested objects and no annotations, the description is minimally sufficient to know what input to provide and why. However, with no output schema or annotations, it leaves the success/failure behavior and response format unspecified, which an agent would need to interpret the tool's result.

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 input schema already documents the lone 'hash' parameter with 100% coverage. The description adds value by clarifying that the hash is a SHA-256 hash of a sealed audit proof, which connects the parameter to the tool's purpose.

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 action ('Verify') and resource ('authenticity of a sealed audit proof by its SHA-256 hash'), which is substantive and more informative than the tool name alone. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like stratverity_quick_check, which may also perform verification.

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 description implies the tool should be used when a caller has a SHA-256 hash and needs to confirm proof authenticity, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as stratverity_quick_check or stratverity_get_badge. An agent cannot tell when this tool is preferred over its siblings.

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