contract_verify

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full behavioral burden but only says what is validated. It does not disclose whether verification is read-only or records a verdict, what a failing result looks like, or whether failure blocks downstream tasks — the most important behavior for a verify step in an orchestration pipeline.

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?

One tight, front-loaded sentence with the rule taxonomy in parentheses — no filler. It is efficient, though the parenthetical list slightly compresses rather than expands understanding.

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 verification tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the input side adequately but omits the outcome side: what the verification returns and what a negative result implies. Enough to know the tool's intent, not enough to call it confidently in a pipeline.

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%, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description hints at the evidence selection model ('collected observable evidence') but adds no clarification about the taskId-vs-evidenceId relationship or precedence beyond what the schema already documents.

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 ('Validates') and resource ('observable evidence against contract rules'), and enumerates the rule categories checked (exit codes, output regex, JSON schema, artifacts). It does not distinguish itself from the similarly named sibling integration_verify, leaving that ambiguity to the agent.

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 no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites beyond the required contractId, and never names integration_verify or architecture_validate as alternatives. It states what is checked but not when the agent should reach for this tool versus those siblings.

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