Verify compliance record

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It does add a behavioral detail by explaining that the attestation is checked for digest binding and signature, which is helpful. However, it does not disclose what happens on success or failure, whether it returns a boolean or throws, permissions required, or any side effects.

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 a single, focused sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the key action and resource, making it easy to parse. While concise, it does not sacrifice the core message, though its brevity contributes to missing contextual information.

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?

The tool has no annotations, no output schema, and a schema with three undocumented parameters, including nested objects. The description is far too sparse to be considered complete. An agent would be left uncertain about the return format, error behavior, and parameter semantics, making reliable invocation impossible.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to 'attestation' by tying it to digest binding and signature, but it leaves 'record' and 'expectedSigner' undefined. Given that the schema has nested objects with no structure, the lack of explanation is a significant gap.

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 action (verify) and the resource (Tersign compliance record + attestation), and adds useful context by specifying that verification involves digest binding and signature. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool verify_receipt, leaving potential ambiguity about when one is preferred over the other.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like verify_receipt, nor does it mention prerequisites, exclusions, or typical scenarios. It is simply a statement of what the tool does, without any usage context.

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