frank_verify

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses read-only behavior, potential performance impact ('may take a moment on a long ledger'), the nuanced edit-then-rechain scenario, and the four explicit anchor_status outcomes. It also explains the security rationale for the CLI-only anchor, adding depth beyond the schema.

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 relatively long but every sentence provides essential context: first the core purpose, then the anchor-check mechanism, then the CLI security note. It is front-loaded with the main action and uses structured paragraphs for the nuanced details.

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?

Despite no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the full behavioral surface: expected return (verdict), edge cases (anchor_status variants), trust model, and read-only nature. It is complete for the tool's complexity, with the only gap being app_id explanation (already addressed in parameter semantics).

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 schema has one required parameter, app_id, with zero description coverage, and the description never mentions app_id or its meaning. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description needed to compensate but did not, leaving the AI agent to infer that app_id identifies the relevant FRANK chain.

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 function: 'Re-hash the entire FRANK governance chain and verify every prev_hash → hash link, detecting tampering, edits, or gaps.' It names the specific resource (FRANK governance chain), the action (verify hash links), and the expected output (verification verdict). This distinguishes it from siblings like frank_read and frank_append.

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 context for when the anchor check applies and how to interpret anchor_status values, and explicitly notes that creating an anchor requires the CLI-only `willow-mcp frank-anchor` tool. However, it does not contrast with alternative MCP tools (e.g., when to use frank_read instead), so it stops short of explicit exclusion guidance.

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