cert_verify

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

With no annotations to fall back on, the description carries the full burden of explaining side effects, permissions, and failure modes. It mentions internal computations (digests, gate consistency, false-pass bound) but does not disclose what the tool does beyond that—no mention of errors, required access, or consequences of verification failure.

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 extremely concise—two sentences—and immediately states the primary action and key verification aspects. It is well-structured, with the action first and the required capability noted at the end, fitting comfortably within a short description.

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?

The description lacks critical context: no output format or return values are described (no output schema exists), no error conditions are mentioned, and the tool's role relative to sibling tools is not clarified. Given the complexity of the certificate verification process, this is insufficient for an agent to know what to expect.

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 zero parameter descriptions, and the tool description does not compensate. While 'certificate' is implied by the resource name, there is no explanation of `hmac_key` or `allow_unauthenticated`. This leaves agents without enough information to construct correct 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?

The description clearly states the core action ('Verify a signoff-cert/v1 certificate') and lists specific checks (digests, gate consistency, false-pass bound recomputation). It is clear enough to distinguish the tool's primary function from generic 'check' or 'audit' tools, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. The only contextual hint is 'Requires `signoff-cert`', which suggests a prerequisite but does not clarify when this verification is appropriate or when another tool should be chosen.

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