Verify Signed Attestation Chain

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

The description adds significant behavioral detail beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations, explaining exactly what the verification proves and, importantly, what it does not prove. It also discloses the layered verification structure (L1/L2/L3) and the dependency on verify_evidence for live transport, giving agents a transparent picture of the tool's semantics 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 concise, front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence provides distinct value: what it verifies, what it returns, what it does not prove, and how it fits into a broader audit flow. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name exists.

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?

The description is complete for a read-only verification tool, especially given the rich annotations and full parameter schema. It provides the invocation rationale, the pipeline context, the output categories, and the key caveats, leaving no critical gap for an agent deciding whether and how to call this tool.

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 coverage for parameters is 100%, so the description need not repeat schema details. It adds useful context for replay_chain by describing it as 'optional L2 replay of daily heads to a Git-tag anchor,' which enriches the bare boolean schema. The reference parameter is adequately covered by the schema's examples and description.

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 identifies the tool as verifying a signed published probe attestation, with specific outputs (L1 signature, key, time, chain-link checks, optional L2 replay, L3 scope). It distinguishes itself from verify_evidence by explicitly noting that L3 scope requires verify_evidence for live transport, making the tool's role in the audit pipeline 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?

The description provides explicit when-to-use context ('after an evidence audit') and a concrete deep-audit pipeline: search_datasets → get_evidence → verify_evidence → verify_attestation. It also states a key exclusion: a valid signature does not prove upstream semantic truth or currentness, guiding agents away from using it for those purposes.

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