verify_contacts

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

The description adds significant behavioral detail beyond the annotations: explains per-chain failure handling (no throw), special cases for unsigned entries (with specific reason and field), and demo mode behavior. Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world hints, but the description enriches these with concrete outputs and edge cases.

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 front-loaded with purpose and return format, followed by use case and important behavioral notes. It includes issue reference and two edge case explanations. While informative, it is slightly dense; could be more structured (e.g., bullet points), but remains clear and efficient.

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 output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return structure including all fields, optional fields, and special cases (unsigned entries, demo mode). It covers expected behavior for different scenarios, making it complete for agent invocation.

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 input schema already provides full description for the optional 'chain' parameter with enum values and behavior. The description does not add new semantic meaning about the parameter itself; it focuses on return values. With 100% schema coverage, baseline score of 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 it is an 'Explicit re-verify' tool, specifies the return format per chain, and distinguishes its purpose as periodic integrity checks or tamper event response. It is specific and contextualized among many sibling tools.

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 explicitly gives use cases ('periodic integrity checks or after a suspected tamper event'). It notes that it does not throw on per-chain failure, guiding how to handle results. However, it does not provide explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use compared to sibling verification tools.

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