verify_decision

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

Describes the internal process: fetching from DynamoDB and S3 Object Lock COMPLIANCE mode and comparing them. Explains the return indicator 'integrity_verified=true'. No annotations provided, so description carries full burden and does it well.

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, front-loaded with the purpose, no redundant information. Every word adds value.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description explains the verification process and return value. It implicitly covers what the agent needs to know. Could explicitly mention the output structure, but not necessary given the simplicity.

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 single parameter event_id is fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'recorded AI decision'. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the verification of integrity, whereas sibling tools list or record decisions.

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 usage contexts: 'satisfy a regulator request' or 'prove an audit trail'. No explicit when-not-to-use, but the use cases are well-defined and imply not for other purposes.

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