Verify an evidence-pack signature

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds the specific algorithm (Ed25519) and the concept of 'canonical content,' which provides useful behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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 main purpose is stated in a single sentence front-loaded. However, the Arg list repetition is redundant given the schema is provided; it adds length without new content. Otherwise efficient.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 required parameters, no enums, output schema present, strong annotations), the description covers the essentials: algorithm, input types, and purpose. It lacks error handling details but is complete enough for typical use.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The parameter descriptions in the tool definition largely duplicate the schema descriptions, adding no new information (e.g., 'base64-encoded' and 'PEM' are already in schema). Minimal value added.

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 action ('verify'), the cryptographic algorithm ('Ed25519'), and the resource ('detached signature over a pack's canonical content'). This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'sign_pack' and 'verify_seal'.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Usage context is implied by the tool's specific purpose, but no exclusions or when-not-to-use advice is given. Given sibling tools exist, a usage hint would improve clarity.

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