verify_contacts

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. Description adds details: returns one row per chain, specific fields, demo mode behavior, and handling of unsigned entries via issue #428. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Description starts with the core purpose, then lists return fields and usage context. It includes detailed behavior but is well-organized. Minor verbosity from including issue number and demo mode specifics.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description comprehensively explains the return structure, error handling, demo mode, and edge cases (unsigned entries). Covers all necessary context for correct usage.

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 coverage is 100% and already describes the 'chain' parameter fully. The description repeats that information without adding new semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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?

Description clearly states it performs explicit re-verification of contacts/chains and returns per-chain results. Differentiates from sibling tools like 'list_contacts' by focusing on verification.

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 recommends usage for periodic integrity checks or after suspected tamper events. Also clarifies that it does not throw on per-chain failure, guiding the agent to inspect the results array. While no direct alternatives are named, the context is clear.

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