Verify Agent Mandate

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds context about the gateway v2 protocol surface, which gives behavioral insight beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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 a single, concise sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

While the description covers the basic purpose and protocol, it lacks completeness by not explaining what 'verify' entails (e.g., signature validation, authority checks) or how this tool relates to other verify tools. The presence of an output schema reduces the need for return value details, but more context on the verification process would be beneficial.

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 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'signed_mandate'. The description does not elaborate on its structure or requirements beyond the name, failing to compensate for the low coverage. Expected details about the envelope format are absent.

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 a signed AgentMandateV1 envelope, specifying the protocol surface (gateway v2). This provides a specific verb-resource pair and distinguishes it from siblings like import_agent_mandate_v1 and other verify tools.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to verify a mandate versus importing or other verification operations. No exclusions or contextual advice is given.

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