Verify Integrity Claim

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description details the verification algorithm (recompute SHA-256), the fail-closed posture, the exact return fields, and clarifies the critical caveat that 'verified' does not guarantee audit rules are still valid. It also states audit_ruleset_recheck is always not_performed, providing transparency well beyond the 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 bilingual and fairly long, but every sentence adds operational value (algorithm, response fields, caveats, optional params). It is front-loaded with the core purpose and method, and the rest supports effective use.

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 complexity of the verification logic and the explicit clarification of what verified does/doesn't guarantee, plus the conditional scope check, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the verification algorithm, failure reasons, return fields, and the 'fail closed' posture. Minor gaps: no explicit mention of error conditions beyond failure_reasons and no example usage, but these are optional for an AI agent.

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 high (all 3 parameters are well-documented), but the description adds behavioral context: passing estimate_version triggers scope check, omitting it skips it, and explains the hash recomputation logic that ties parameters together.

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 signed integrity claims (signed_payload and claim_sha256) as a third party, with explicit posture (fail-closed, distrust). It distinguishes from the issuing side by naming verify_fair_price as the opposite, making the tool's unique role unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: use when you have an integrity claim to verify, no issuer contact needed, and when to pass estimate_version vs omit it. It also differentiates by contrasting with the issuing tool (verify_fair_price), clarifying the appropriate context.

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