get audit verification

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

Beyond the strong readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations, the description discloses material behavior: verification is null until the first nightly run, the response schema and fields, Cache-Control: no-store, API-key scope, and the platform-global chain scope. These add real operational context an agent cannot infer from annotations alone.

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 dense but every sentence carries necessary information: the operation, endpoint, auth, full return shape, null behavior, and the key distinction from export_audit_log. The key purpose is front-loaded and the structured return example is easy to parse.

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 no output schema and no parameters, the description fully compensates by specifying the complete response object, the null-before-first-run behavior, the tombstone list, and the relationship to audit export. Nothing needed to invoke and interpret this tool correctly is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters and an empty schema, so there is no parameter ambiguity to resolve. The description still supplements the schema by documenting the endpoint and authentication scope, meeting the baseline for a parameterless 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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Read the latest nightly whole-chain integrity verification of the audit log... plus the tombstone list.' It clearly identifies this as the platform's integrity statement and distinguishes it from export_audit_log by noting that own-row hashes come from GET /v1/audit/export.

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 gives clear context: this reports the platform-global integrity verification, not your own rows' hashes, which are handled by GET /v1/audit/export. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling list_audit_tombstones or verify_document, so alternative guidance is partial rather than exhaustive.

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