verify_attestation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. Description adds context about what is verified (claim, evidence, conclusion) and that no account is needed. No contradictions but does not disclose additional behaviors beyond annotations.

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?

Two sentences plus an Args line. All front-loaded: purpose first, then usage, then parameter. Every sentence adds value. No 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?

Tool has 1 simple parameter, annotations provide safety profile, and description covers purpose, usage, and parameter. Output schema exists (not shown). No gaps for the given complexity.

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 is 0%, so description carries full burden. Description explains 'attestation_json' as 'the full attestation object as JSON text,' adding meaning beyond the schema's type and title. Single parameter well-documented.

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 verb 'verify' and the resource 'attestation', with specific details about confirming integrity of claim, evidence, and conclusion. It distinguishes from siblings like evaluate_claim and check_evaluation.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: someone has a Zetesis dossier or attestation and wants independent re-check. Also notes 'No account needed,' implying no authentication required. Could be improved with explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use.

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