verify_utr

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

With no annotations, description fully carries the burden and discloses that the response indicates anchoring status, returns detailed verification fields, and involves ed25519 verification before returning. 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?

Three sentences with front-loaded purpose statement and no redundant information; every sentence adds value.

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?

Adequately explains return fields for a lookup tool with one parameter, though could mention error handling or format of the boolean result.

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?

Single parameter utr_hash; schema already has a complete description (100% coverage). The description adds no further meaning beyond the schema.

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?

Clearly states the tool looks up a Universal Trade Receipt by hash and explains the output structure, distinguishing it from siblings like get_utrs and search_records.

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?

Implies use when you have a UTR hash to verify on-chain anchoring; lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but context from sibling names provides some guidance.

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