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

The annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds only modest behavioral context beyond annotations, such as the signed nature of the receipt and the explicit no-state-change guarantee, but does not disclose additional traits like exact response semantics (covered by output schema) or failure modes.

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?

A single, focused sentence that front-loads the primary action and key mode of identification, then appends the behavioral guarantee. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail, making it highly scannable for an agent.

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 the presence of a rich output schema and safety annotations, the description covers the core usage scenario well. The main gap is the undocumented 'payload' parameter, which leaves the agent uncertain whether payload is a valid alternative identity and whether it behaves differently from receipt_id or receipt. Overall, it is nearly complete but not fully self-sufficient.

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 carries the burden of explaining parameters. It explicitly names receipt_id and receipt object, which covers two of the three accepted inputs, but it omits 'payload' entirely and gives no detail on the inner structure of the object parameters. Thus it partially compensates for the schema gap but is incomplete.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('Verify'), a specific resource ('an InfraPulse signed receipt'), and the two accepted ways to identify it ('by receipt_id or receipt object'). It also adds a key differentiator, 'without changing account or provider state', which aligns with the read-only nature and distinguishes it from the sibling tools like execute and quote.

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 context for when to use the tool: when verifying a signed receipt by ID or object, without side effects. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the sibling tools (authorize, connect, discover, execute, quote) are sufficiently different that the usage context is unambiguous.

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