verify_integrity_claim

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description adds critical behavioral details: the tool is fail-closed, distrustful by default, requires no issuer contact, and that audit_ruleset_recheck is always not_performed. These are valuable beyond standard annotations and provide a clear operational model. No contradiction with annotations.

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 thorough but somewhat verbose, repeating key information in both Japanese and English. While well-structured (purpose first, then details), it could be more concise. Every sentence adds value, but the bilingual repetition increases length without additional content.

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's complexity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description comprehensively covers return values (result, failure_reason, trigger, recomputed_sha256, scope_check, audit_ruleset_recheck) and references the contract version. It explains scope check behavior and the always-skipped audit_ruleset_recheck. This fully compensates for the lack of output schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context for each parameter: for signed_payload it stresses verbatim input and consequence of change, for claim_sha256 it specifies source, and for estimate_version it explains computation and effect. This enhances understanding beyond the schema descriptions.

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 integrity claim from estimate-integrity-audit as a third party. It uses specific verbs ('検証する' / 'Verifies') and resource ('署名付きクレーム' / 'signed integrity claim'), and explicitly distinguishes from the issuing side (verify_fair_price). The purpose is unambiguous and differentiates from siblings.

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 explains when to use the tool (to verify a claim) and provides important usage context such as 'distrust by default, fail closed' and the caveat that verified means untampered but not that audit ruleset is valid. It also explains the optional estimate_version parameter for scope checking. While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use, the contrast with the issuing side and the mention that no issuer contact is needed provides implicit guidance.

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