Verify Agent Recognition Proof

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by noting that the proof is 'replay-safe' and that verification is against expected purpose and request envelope. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the tool is safe. No contradiction observed.

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 with two sentences, front-loading the core action. No unnecessary words or repetition. Slightly more detail on parameters could be added without harming conciseness.

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?

Although an output schema exists (not shown), the description does not mention return values or error conditions. For a verification tool with three required object parameters, more contextual information is needed to ensure correct invocation, such as what constitutes a valid proof or expected request format.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter meaning, but it only mentions 'expected purpose' and 'request envelope' without explaining the 'proof' object or the structure of 'expected_request'. The term 'request envelope' is vague and does not clarify the parameter semantics.

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's purpose: 'Verify a replay-safe AgentRecognitionProofV1 against an expected purpose and request envelope.' It specifies the verb (Verify) and the resource (AgentRecognitionProofV1), and it differentiates from similar siblings like verify_agent_mandate_v1 and verify_capability.

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 some context by stating that verifier context is derived from the authenticated session, but it does not explicitly advise when to use this tool versus alternatives like verify_agent_mandate_v1 or verify_protocol_receipt_v1. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite guidance is given.

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