verify_seal

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals key traits: on-device processing (nothing uploaded), the integrity-not-identity caveat, the requirement for a configured native engine, and the meaning of an unsupported version verdict. These go beyond basic expectations and significantly inform the agent of operational constraints and limitations.

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 dense paragraph but every sentence contributes value. It front-loads the main purpose, then adds distinguishing, caveats, requirements, and verdict handling. While it could be broken into shorter paragraphs for readability, it is not wasteful and maintains focus.

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?

For a cryptographic verification tool with important nuances, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the exact object of verification, the distinction from a sibling, the integrity vs. identity trap, the need for a native engine, and the interpretation of a special verdict. Since an output schema exists, return values are presumably defined there, so the description covers all necessary contextual ground.

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 already fully describes the sole parameter (`pdfPath` as absolute path), achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add further semantic detail about the parameter itself, only contextual background about the file's contents. Thus, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific purpose: verifying a PDF's embedded Omitly audit report and trailing Ed25519 tamper-evidence seal. It distinguishes itself from the sibling `verify_redaction` by explicitly contrasting their functions, making the tool's 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?

It provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. verify_redaction, explaining the difference in what each checks. It also gives critical direction on how to handle identity verification (comparing sealFingerprint out-of-band) and what to do upon receiving a `seal_unsupported_version` verdict (update verifier, not trust/reject). This fully addresses usage context and alternatives.

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