Check an artifact digest against a document

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the useful behavioral fact that the tool reads digests declared inside external document formats rather than computing/scanning anything, but says nothing about mismatch behavior (error vs. negative result) or return shape beyond what the output schema provides.

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 compact sentence with the key constraint (document types) front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the garbled syntax slightly undermines first-read clarity.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but the inputs are critically underspecified: an agent cannot tell whether 'document' expects raw document text, a file path, or base64, nor when to use artifact_text versus artifact_base64. For a comparison/verification tool this leaves the call shape ambiguous.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden and it does not. It never explains that 'document' is the required document payload, nor the mutually exclusive purpose of artifact_text vs artifact_base64 — the single most important ambiguity for calling this tool correctly.

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 names a specific verb (check) and resource (artifact digest) and scopes it to three document standards (TEA, CycloneDX, in-toto), which clearly separates it from generic verify_claim/verify_dsse siblings. The phrasing is awkward ('a digest a ... document names') but the intent is recoverable.

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?

Naming the supported document formats implies the situation in which to use it (when you have an SBOM/attestation-style document and want to confirm an artifact is listed). However, it never says when not to use it, nor points to verify_dsse/verify_claim/verify_sample as alternatives for adjacent verification tasks.

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