verify_claim

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

With no annotations, the description must cover behavioral aspects. It explains the three types and the aliasing of did for agent_did in identity verification. However, it lacks details on side effects, permissions, error handling, or return values.

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 concise with two clear paragraphs: a one-sentence purpose followed by type enumeration and alias explanation. Every sentence 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 tool with 8 parameters and one required, the description adequately covers the main usage patterns (three types) and the alias feature. It could mention return values or error conditions, but an output schema exists to cover those.

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?

Given 0% schema coverage, the description compensates by mapping parameters to claim types and explaining the did/agent_did alias. This adds crucial meaning beyond the raw schema, though not all 8 parameters are individually detailed.

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 'Verify a claim' and enumerates three distinct verification types (signature, identity, commitment), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like make_claim and decode_signed.

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 explains when to use each type based on the claim_type, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide direct comparisons to sibling tools. Usage is implied through the type enumeration.

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