Resolve VAGP authority

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

The description explicitly states that calling this tool does not execute the protected action, which implies a read-only behavior. However, the annotations include readOnlyHint: false, which indicates the tool is not read-only per the annotation. This is a direct contradiction. The description also fails to disclose any other behavioral traits, such as side effects or state changes. The contradiction alone necessitates a score of 1, as per the rules.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences with no redundant words. It front-loads the core purpose and adds a safety note. However, it is under-specified for a tool with six parameters and no other documentation. The brevity is acceptable, but it sacrifices necessary detail. It is neither bloated nor elegantly structured; it is simply short.

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 description is drastically incomplete for a tool with six parameters, three required, and no output schema. It provides no information about return values, parameter formats, possible error conditions, or how to construct inputs. The sibling set includes tools that seem related (e.g., verify_permit), yet the description does not clarify the distinction. Additionally, the contradiction with annotations further undermines completeness. The agent would have to rely entirely on parameter names and guesswork.

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?

With a schema description coverage of 0%, the description carries the full burden of explaining the six parameters. Yet it mentions none of them—no explanation of agentId, action, resourceId, requestId, evaluationTime, or parametersDigest. It provides zero semantic context for any parameter, leaving the agent to guess from names alone. This is a significant gap in a tool with three required parameters.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: determining whether an agent is currently authorized for a specific action. It uses a specific verb ('Determine') and resource ('authorization'), and the phrase 'does not execute the protected action' adds context. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like verimand.verify_permit or verimand.get_authority, which might have overlapping roles. The clarity is good but lacks a comparative note.

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 implies when to use the tool (when you need to know if an agent is authorized), but it offers no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it differs from alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions. It barely hints that calling this tool is safe (non-executing), which is a mild usage hint, but there is no direct comparison to sibling tools.

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