audit_verify

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

The description adds value beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by detailing the verification mechanism (cryptographic hash chain vs entry consistency) and specifying the return format (JSON string). It does not contradict annotations and provides moderate behavioral context.

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 short paragraphs. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, and the subsequent lines provide necessary detail without redundancy. Every sentence contributes meaningfully.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters and a simple output, the description is mostly complete. It explains what the tool does and how it works, though it could mention potential performance implications or clarify the output schema further. The presence of an output schema mitigates this need.

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 no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. Per guidelines, baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but this is acceptable given the parameterless nature of the tool.

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 the integrity of the audit trail.' It explains the verification method (cryptographic hash chain or entry consistency) and differentiates itself from sibling tools like 'audit' and 'audit_export' through its focus on integrity checking.

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. It lacks explicit context such as when verification is appropriate or prerequisites. No exclusion criteria or alternative tool mentions are given.

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