prepare_verification

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

Annotations already establish that this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) that is non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds a meaningful behavioral trait: the token is 'one-time', implying it cannot be reused, and the plan is 'evidence-linked', indicating a relationship to evidence data. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand side effects and constraints.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action and the produced artifacts with no filler. Every word contributes to meaning, and it is easy to scan quickly.

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?

With an output schema present, return values do not need to be described. The main gap is the missing workflow context: the description does not connect this tool to execute_verification or mention prerequisites such as criteria and verifier discovery, though the sibling list and parameter names offer indirect hints. It is adequate for a single-step creation tool but leaves workflow sequencing implicit.

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%, so the parameter semantics are already fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any extra meaning or context about parameters, which is acceptable given the schema coverage. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and names two concrete artifacts ('evidence-linked verifier plan' and 'one-time execution token'). This distinguishes it from siblings like execute_verification (which would run rather than prepare) and record_attestation. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast siblings, and the term 'verifier plan' is somewhat abstract without further context.

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?

Usage context is implied by the name 'prepare_verification' and the production of an 'execution token', suggesting this should be called before execute_verification. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use it, when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools. The guidance is left to inference.

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