Verify the index audit chain

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the chain is 'tamper-evident', implying a hash/chain integrity check, but says nothing about what a failed verification means, whether it raises or returns, or whether it is expensive to run.

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?

A single short sentence with the object of verification front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized for the operation, though one clause more of substance would not have hurt.

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?

With one fully documented parameter and clear read-only annotations, the tool is simple enough that the definition is nearly sufficient. The gap is the return contract: no output schema exists, so the description should at least indicate that verification yields a pass/fail or chain-status result, which it does not.

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 100% for the single db_path parameter, and the description adds no additional semantics (e.g. whether the path is to an index root or a database file). Baseline 3 applies when the schema already carries the parameter meaning.

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?

States a specific verb (verify) and a specific resource (the tamper-evident audit chain of an index), so the agent knows this is an integrity check rather than an indexing or traversal operation. It does not, however, distinguish itself from any named sibling or reference the index it operates on in terms of a sibling relationship.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. must the index be built first?), and no mention of alternatives such as codetopo_stats or codetopo_snapshot. The agent must infer the trigger condition for verification entirely from the tool name.

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