verify_artifact

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so description only needs to add extra behavioral context. It adds that completion depends on a result carrying valid (true/false) and the artifact record, provides rate/usage info ('Free, unlimited'), and clarifies scope ('only ids scvd.store itself issued'). More than enough, though it doesn't define what 'valid' means or the artifact record shape.

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?

Four sentences, purpose front-loaded, exclusions and alternatives clearly separated. Every sentence earns its place with 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?

With only 1 parameter, an output schema present, and helpful annotations, the description fully covers what agent needs: what tool does, when forbidden, what result to expect, and a manual verification alternative.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with 'A cert_, stamp_, or anchor_ id.' Description adds key semantics: id must be issued by scvd.store itself, and the tool verifies by id. This goes beyond the schema's format hint to explain the ownership constraint.

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?

Description specifies verb 'Verify' and resource 'anything scvd.store has ever signed', listing concrete artifact types (certificates, visit stamps, context anchors). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools (which are about buying/signing/ringing, not verification) and explicitly excludes other stores.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use (verify scvd.store-signed artifacts), when-not-to-use (NOT for other x402 services or other stores' artifacts), and even an alternative (verify signature yourself with ed25519 library). The 'Free, unlimited' note also signals cost/no quota.

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