card.verify (public)

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states the operation is verification, lists return data, and notes the board never re-issues it, implying a read-only/non-mutating action. It does not detail error behavior, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 compact and informative. The final sentence about mages.city adds context but is not strictly necessary for invocation, keeping it from a perfect score.

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?

It explains the verification algorithm, the participantId derivation, and the return fields, which is sufficient despite the lack of an output schema. It does not specify failure behavior, but that is less critical for a verify operation.

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 single parameter is fully described in the schema with accepted formats (object, JSON text, or path). The tool description adds no additional semantic detail beyond referencing the card payload.

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?

Clearly states the tool verifies an AgentCard, specifies the signature scheme (ed25519), and lists the returned identity fields. It is distinct from sibling key_verify by targeting AgentCard/ceremony identity 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 purpose implies when to use it (when an AgentCard needs verification), but it does not explicitly compare against sibling tools like key_verify or state conditions for choosing this tool.

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