verify_ledger_live_codesign

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

Annotations declare readOnly and idempotent; description reinforces READ-ONLY, explains that it never refuses signing but surfaces verdict, and describes execution time. No contradictions.

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?

Well-structured with key info front-loaded, but slightly verbose. Still, every sentence adds value, so it's 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 fully explains all possible return values, platform-specific behavior, limitations, and prerequisites. An agent can confidently select and invoke this tool.

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 parameter's schema description already provides basics, but the tool-level description adds critical context: defaults, requirement on Linux, and unsupported installs. This significantly aids correct invocation.

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 performs codesign verification of the Ledger Live binary across three platforms, with per-platform tooling and return values. It distinguishes from sibling verification tools by specifying binary codesign specifically.

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?

Explicitly states when to run (after install/update/OS update), warns about Linux path requirement and unsupported installs, and advises not to auto-fire due to latency. Provides alternatives for unsupported package managers.

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