audit_chain_verify_live

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the remote-service dependency, the required credentials, the structured-error failure mode, and named return fields (valid, checked, first_break_at, reason) in the absence of an output schema. It also bounds the claim explicitly (chain continuity only, not truthfulness/authorization/completeness/legal compliance), which prevents over-reading of results.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what is checked, immediately followed by what is not checked, then return shape and prerequisites. No filler and no repeated schema content.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: the remote dependency, required configuration, failure behavior, and the names/meaning of the return values. The explicit scope limitation is a valuable addition that no structured field conveys.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does add useful non-schema context by naming the two environment variables that must be configured, though these are configuration rather than call arguments.

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 (verify) and resource (server-side hash chain) plus the target (the configured audit-stream service), which distinguishes it from the local sibling audit_chain_verify. An agent can tell immediately that this performs a live remote verification rather than verifying a supplied chain.

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 usage context ('ask the configured audit-stream service') and states the configuration prerequisite (AUDIT_STREAM_URL/AUDIT_STREAM_TOKEN), but never explicitly contrasts this with audit_chain_verify or says when to prefer one over the other. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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