verify

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

The description discloses that the tool proves unbroken-ness of both chains, implying a verification/read-only behavior. Without annotations, it carries the burden, but it doesn't disclose what happens on failure (e.g., error vs. false return), whether it is purely read-only, or if it triggers any repair/recovery actions. It's adequate but incomplete.

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 a single sentence, direct, and front-loads the action. It wastes no words and conveys the essential scope. Slight minus for being terse but effective.

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?

For a zero-parameter verification tool with no output schema, the description states what it proves but doesn't specify the success/failure return semantics, how the result is presented, or whether it makes any changes. Given the tool's simplicity, this is a minor gap, making it adequately complete but not fully comprehensive.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty. The description doesn't need to explain parameters; baseline 4 for zero params is appropriate. It also accurately reflects the tool's scope.

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 uses a specific verb ('Prove') and names the exact resource/scope ('BOTH audit chains (local Humane + hosted ArkHive)'), making it clear this tool verifies chain integrity. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings, but no sibling name overlaps with audit verification, so it's sufficiently clear.

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 implies the tool should be used when there is a need to confirm both audit chains are unbroken, which provides adequate context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, mention any prerequisites, or name alternative tools for related but different checks.

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