Verify Audit Hash

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine interpretive value beyond that: it discloses the internal mechanism (recompute from stored inputs) and what a mismatch signifies (tampering), which tells the agent how to read the result rather than just that it is a safe read.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by mechanism and the meaning of the outcome. No filler, no repetition of the title, every sentence earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and the mechanism plus mismatch semantics make the tool's behavior understandable for calling it. The only notable gap is the absence of any routing guidance against verify_audit_chain, which matters given the overlapping naming.

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?

With a single parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents trade_id fully (including the example format). The description adds no additional constraint, format, or scoping detail about the identifier, 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 states a specific verb and resource (verify a Trading Decision Record) and even explains the mechanism (recompute SHA256 data_hash and compare against the decision-time hash). It is clear and self-contained, but it never names or distinguishes itself from the close sibling verify_audit_chain, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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?

Usage is implied: use this to check one record for tampering. There is no explicit statement of when to reach for this versus verify_audit_chain (chain-level verification) or export_audit_trail, leaving the agent to infer the selection rule from sibling names alone.

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