Single tool 'verify' has a clear, domain-specific description (165 chars) and explicit input schema with three required object parameters. However, parameter descriptions lack detail on expected structure and constraints. The schema defines items as bare objects without property specifications, forcing LLMs to guess at internal structure. No output schema is documented, the tool returns a Verdict JSON but the response structure is not formally specified. Error handling is present (PayloadError, ValidationError caught) but error messages are generic ('payload error', 'schema invalid') without recovery guidance. The tool name is a verb but lacks specificity, 'verify' could mean many things; 'verify_proposal_against_rules' would be clearer. No tool annotations (readOnlyHint, etc.) present.

• Add 'properties' to the 'proposal' parameter schema: {type: 'object', properties: {action: {type: 'string', description: '...'}, actor: {type: 'string', description: '...'}, target: {type: 'string', description: '...'}, scope: {type: 'string', description: '...'}}, required: ['action', 'actor', 'target', 'scope']}
• Define 'items.properties' for 'facts' and 'rules' arrays so LLMs know the expected structure of each Fact and ConstraintRule object.
• Document the output schema in the tool description or as a separate field: 'Returns a Verdict object with fields: status (string: allowed|denied|invalid_input), failed_rules (array), missing_facts (array), warnings (array), contradictions (array).'
• Enhance error messages with actionable guidance: 'Invalid proposal structure: missing required field "action". Expected: {action, actor, target, scope}' instead of 'payload error: ...'
• Rename tool to 'verify_proposal' or 'verify_proposal_against_rules' to improve clarity and LLM tool selection accuracy.