Venice TEE Response Signature

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the tool 'only returns the provider payload' (it does not perform verification for you) and 'No authentication required'. These are meaningful traits not present in the structured fields.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the verification caveat and auth note. Every sentence carries distinct information, though the middle clause is dense and could be slightly clearer.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by explaining that it returns only the provider payload. Combined with well-documented params and the verification requirement, an agent has enough to call and interpret it; only the exact payload shape is left unspecified.

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%, so both parameters (model and request_id) are fully documented in the schema, including their provenance. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Fetch) and resource (the enclave signature for a completed TEE text-model chat request), and ties the operation to the sibling attestation flow by noting the signature must be checked against a 'separately verified attestation'. An agent can distinguish this from venice_tee_attestation and from the chat tools without opening a schema.

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?

Clearly implies the context of use ('for a completed TEE text-model chat request') and states a hard prerequisite (the caller must verify against a separately verified attestation). It does not explicitly name venice_chat or the attestation tool as the required predecessors, but the workflow is inferable.

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