verify_handoff

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

The description ends with 'Read-only,' but the annotations declare readOnlyHint=false. This is a direct contradiction about whether the tool modifies state, which is a serious transparency failure for an agent relying on the description. The extra context about checklist, envelope, and findings is useful, but the contradiction overrides it.

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 appropriately compact and front-loaded with the orchestrator context and verification goal. The em-dash list efficiently conveys the key checkpoints. The brief 'Read-only' sentence is short and clear, though it hurts the overall definition because it contradicts the annotations.

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?

This is a low-complexity verify tool with two required parameters and no output schema, so the description captures the core purpose and timing. However, it does not state what a successful or failed verification returns, and it gives conflicting safety signals due to the readOnly contradiction.

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%, so the description must compensate for the two parameters. It only implies that app_id and dispatch_id identify a dispatch, but it does not explain the expected format, ownership, or relationship. The description does not provide enough semantics beyond the parameter names.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: it checks a completed dispatch's handoff and confirms the closeout exists and its declarations hold. The bulleted checks clearly distinguish this from generic handoff reading or writing, though it does not explicitly name a sibling like handoff_read to reinforce the distinction.

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 gives clear usage timing: 'Run this before agent_clear releases the specialist for its next packet.' This anchors when the tool should be invoked, but it does not describe when not to use it or what alternative to choose if verification isn't needed.

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