veya_pq_verify

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it only discloses the algorithm and message encoding. It never says whether verification returns a boolean or throws on a malformed signature, whether a bad signature is an error or a false result, or that the operation is side-effect free.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence naming the verb, algorithm and input domain, with no filler. It is lean to the point of under-specification, but nothing is wasted.

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?

A cryptographic verification tool with no output schema and no annotations should at minimum describe the result shape and failure behavior; neither is given. An agent calling this must guess whether success is a boolean, a status object, or an error path.

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 0% across three required parameters. The phrase 'UTF-8 text' hints at how the message argument is interpreted, but nothing explains the hex encoding expected for publicKeyHex/signatureHex, the minimum lengths, or the ML-DSA-44 key/signature sizes.

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?

It states a specific verb (verify) and a precisely bounded resource (an ML-DSA-44 signature over UTF-8 text), which distinguishes it from veya_pq_sign, veya_pq_keygen and veya_pq_fingerprint in the PQ family. It does not explicitly name those alternatives, but the algorithm and input-encoding detail make the scope unambiguous.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites (e.g. that the key and signature must be hex-encoded ML-DSA-44 artifacts), and no routing to sibling verification tools such as veya_verify_secure_message or veya_verify_transaction. Usage is only weakly implied by the tool's name and verb.

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