verify_audit_hash

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by explaining the verification algorithm (recompute SHA256 from stored inputs and compare) and the consequence of a mismatch (tampering). This goes beyond the annotations and gives the agent a clear model of behavior.

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 concise, two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence earns its place without any fluff.

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?

This is a simple tool with a single required parameter, rich annotations, and an output schema present. The description explains both what it does and the verification logic, making it complete for the given complexity. Return values are already covered by the output schema.

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 has 100% coverage with a clear description of trade_id. The tool description does not add further parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool verifies the integrity of a Trading Decision Record and explains the mechanism: it recomputes the SHA256 data_hash and compares it with the original. This specific verb+resource distinguishes it from sibling tools like verify_audit_chain (which likely verifies the chain) and get_trade_reflection.

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 a clear use case: verifying a single record for tampering. The singular 'a Trading Decision Record' provides context, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion scenarios (e.g., when to use verify_audit_chain instead).

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