vtimestamp_verify

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the server computes SHA-256 hash, checks against on-chain records, and returns blockchain proof details. However, it doesn't mention error conditions, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens when no timestamp is found.

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 perfectly front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by implementation details. Every sentence earns its place by adding necessary information about parameters and return values. No wasted words or redundancy.

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?

For a verification tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by explaining the verification process and return values. However, it could be more complete by mentioning error cases, what 'blockchain proof details' includes, or whether this is a read-only operation.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by explaining the mutual exclusivity of file_path and text parameters and mentioning the SHA-256 hash computation, but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in 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?

The description clearly states the specific action ('verify'), the resource ('a file or text'), and the verification target ('has been timestamped on a VerusID'). It distinguishes from sibling tools (vtimestamp_info, vtimestamp_list) by focusing on verification rather than information listing.

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 clear context about when to use this tool (to verify timestamping) and specifies the mutually exclusive parameter options (file_path or text). However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools.

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