verify

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It explains the return value: a 5-minute HMAC-signed token on success or an error object on failure. It also mentions server-side re-verification. However, it does not cover potential side effects or rate limits.

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 consists of three concise sentences: the first states the purpose, the second details input/output, and the third mentions server-side capabilities. It is front-loaded and free of superfluous content.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains return values (success token with lifetime, failure reason). It references the sibling 'challenge' and describes the token's re-verification endpoint. However, it lacks detail on possible failure reasons or error codes.

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 description adds valuable context by listing parameters and stating they come from a prior challenge call, plus the agent-computed nonce. This clarifies the origin and usage beyond the schema descriptions.

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 explicitly states 'Verify a PoW solution,' using a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'challenge' by describing input from a prior challenge call and the verification purpose.

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 indicates that input comes 'from a prior challenge call,' implying a sequence (call challenge first, then verify). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast with alternatives, but the context is clear.

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