verify_proofjson_proof

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

Even without annotations, the description fully discloses the tool's behavioral traits: it does not verify real-world truth, is supplied_data_only, and does not independently verify external facts unless trust adapters are configured. This goes beyond what annotations typically provide.

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 fairly long but each sentence adds an important caveat or clarification. It is front-loaded with the main action and structured logically, with only minor redundancy.

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?

While the description covers purpose and limitations well, it omits details about the return value/output format and does not explain parameters. Given no output schema and no annotations, this is a moderate gap.

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 description does not explain the meaning or usage of the individual parameters (proof, expected_subject, expected_hash, options). With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate, but it only mentions 'supplied invoice data, supplied context and configured policy' in a general sense.

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 purpose: 'Verify a ProofJSON proof for structure, hash consistency and signature validity.' It uses a specific verb ('Verify') and resource ('ProofJSON proof'), and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on proof verification versus invoice assessment or listing packs.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool and its limitations, but does not explicitly compare to sibling tools. It clarifies what the tool does NOT verify (e.g., real-world truth, supplier identity) and states that 'allow is not a guarantee.'

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