Verify Agent Mandate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's mention of 'verify' is consistent but adds minimal value. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, authorization needs) are disclosed beyond the annotation.

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?

Single sentence, no redundancy, but it is overly terse and sacrifices clarity. A more informative description would better serve the agent.

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?

Despite a single parameter and output schema existence, the description does not explain the return value or the verification outcome (e.g., boolean, details). Annotations provide minimal context, leaving the agent underinformed.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description provides no details on the structure or expected fields of the 'signed_mandate' parameter. The mention of 'AgentMandateV1 envelope' is vague and insufficient for parameter understanding.

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 action (verify) and the specific resource (signed AgentMandateV1 envelope), distinguishing it from sibling verification tools like verify_capability and verify_protocol_receipt_v1. However, the jargon ('gateway v2 protocol surface') may obscure meaning.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The description merely restates the tool's purpose without application context.

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