veriscope_verify_attestation

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it never states the return semantics (valid/invalid? mismatch details?), whether verification is read-only, or what happens on failure. Critically, all three parameters are optional (required: 0), and the description gives no rule for which combination must be supplied, leaving the invocation contract ambiguous.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb and cryptographic primitive stated first, so there is no wasted structure. The 'guarantee zero-hallucination' clause is rhetorical padding rather than operational information.

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 verification tool with a nested object parameter, zero annotations, no output schema and no required fields, the description should clarify the expected input combination and the shape of a verification result. Neither is addressed, leaving significant ambiguity for an agent trying to call it correctly.

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 each of concept_id, attestation and canon_sha256 is already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds the useful mapping that 'receipt' means the attestation object, but it does not clarify the relationship or precedence among the three optional inputs.

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?

States a specific verb ('Mathematically verify') and a specific resource ('Ed25519 cryptographic receipt of an academic quote'), which is clearly distinct from the discovery/inspection siblings. The added 'zero-hallucination' framing is marketing-flavored rather than descriptive, but the core action is unmistakable.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus veriscope_locate_evidence or veriscope_discover_concepts, no stated prerequisites (e.g. must a concept be discovered first), and no indication of what a failed verification means. The agent must infer the workflow entirely from the name and the sibling list.

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