verify_origin_candidate

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose side effects, safety, or return behavior. The only behavioral hint is 'compare', implying read-only, but no confirmation or details on what happens.

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, which is concise. However, it lacks structure and essential details, making it minimally effective. A good structure would front-load key information, but here it is too sparse.

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 no annotations, no parameter descriptions, and 4 required parameters, the description is highly incomplete. The presence of an output schema is not leveraged. The tool involves complex comparison logic, yet no behavioral or return value context is provided.

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 has 4 required parameters with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain any parameter roles or values. The tool name hints at 'session_id', 'origin_run_id', 'candidate_index', and 'direct_request_confirmed', but no semantics are provided, leaving the agent guessing.

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 (compare) and resources (HTTPS edge response vs direct-IP response), with context (after a fresh user decision, using target SNI/Host). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'verify_finding' by specifying the comparison with direct-IP, but could be more explicit about the 'verify' aspect.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'verify_finding' or 'compare_authorization'. The description mentions 'after a fresh user decision' but does not explain when not to use or provide comparative context.

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