verify_evidence_package

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and idempotent, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the package is sent to Dokimo's public A2A endpoint, relies on the live Base on-chain anchor, and the verdict only succeeds when both proof recomputation and on-chain commitment checks pass. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds necessary information: required package structure, verification behavior, and verdict semantics. There is no filler 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 nested-object tool with no output schema, the description fully covers the required input structure, the remote verification behavior, and the return verdict shape including when verified is true. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without additional information.

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%, and the tool description largely mirrors the schema by listing the required package keys and noting that close_id is optional/echoed. It adds no meaningful semantic value beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Fully verify a Dokimo evidence package against the LIVE on-chain anchor.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling recompute_merkle_root by explaining that verification includes both Merkle proof recomputation and on-chain anchoring.

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 makes the use case clear: full verification including on-chain anchor checking, which is distinct from merely recomputing a Merkle root. It does not explicitly name the alternative or state when not to use this tool, but the context is strong enough for an agent to route correctly.

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