witness_verify_seal

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

The description fully discloses behavior: it operates offline, reconstructs the envelope, checks Ed25519 signature, returns valid: True/False, and returns a specific error for missing target fields. It explains that missing targets lead to incomplete_verification_input error, not a false valid flag. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and meets 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?

The description is concise and well-structured: an opening summary, usage guidance, specifics for seal types and aliases, and return value/error behavior. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 has no output schema and 10 parameters, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the input expected from seal responses, the difference between seal types, alias handling, the boolean output, and the error condition. No important aspects are omitted.

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 schema has 10 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description explains the key target parameters (target_block_hash_hex for timestamp, target_chain_id and target_chain_head_hex for state) and alias fields (target_block_hash, target_chain_head). It implies the other required parameters come from the seal response, but does not explicitly describe each one. This provides valuable context beyond the schema, though not exhaustive.

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 tool verifies witness seals offline, reconstructing the signing envelope and checking Ed25519 signatures. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like witness_seal_timestamp and witness_seal_state by emphasizing offline verification and using their responses as input.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool: for verifying seals offline by feeding fields from witness_seal_timestamp or witness_seal_state responses. It explains the difference between timestamp and state seals and mentions alias field names for backward compatibility. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool versus other verification tools like verify_claim.

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