verify_decision

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'using Trust OS' but does not explain what verification entails, whether it is a read-only operation, whether it requires permissions, or what happens after verification (e.g., returns a result, blocks execution). This lack of transparency is a significant gap for a decision-related tool.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. There is no redundancy or filler. It earns its place by communicating the essential action and context.

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 7 parameters, one nested object, and no output schema or annotations. The description is far too minimal to cover the behavioral aspects, verification process, return values, or edge cases. It provides only a high-level purpose and leaves the agent guessing about how to use the tool effectively.

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 100% (all parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, but it does not need to since the schema already documents each parameter. The description does not clarify relationships between parameters or provide usage examples.

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 tool's purpose: 'Verify a high-impact decision before execution.' The verb 'verify' is specific, and 'high-impact decision' identifies the resource. It also distinguishes from the sibling tool 'create_decision' by implying this tool is for verification, not creation.

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 phrase 'before execution' implies when to use the tool, but there is no explicit mention of alternatives, exclusions, or when not to use it. The sibling tool 'create_decision' is not referenced, leaving room for ambiguity about the relation between creating and verifying decisions.

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