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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the on-chain verification behavior and the onChain:false caveat, which is valuable. However, it does not disclose return format, error behavior, or side effects (e.g., network dependencies), leaving some uncertainty for an agent.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core verification action, and each clause adds a distinct piece of information. It avoids repetition and is easy to parse 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?

For a verification tool with no output schema, the description covers the input modes and the on-chain nuance well. However, it does not specify what the tool returns (e.g., boolean, receipt details, or error reasons), which is important for an agent to interpret the result. This leaves a moderate completeness gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by explaining the relationship between orderId and receipt, and by clarifying that onChain:false disables both txid checks. This extra context justifies a higher score.

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 the tool's purpose: verify an ed25519-signed receipt, its signature, and optionally the txids against an Algorand indexer. It also distinguishes two use cases (orderId vs receipt object), which separates it clearly from sibling tools like order_status or 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 explicit usage guidance: use orderId to verify this service's own orders, or pass a receipt object to verify any receipt in the format, including from another server. It does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool relative to siblings, but the sibling set is distinct enough that no exclusion is necessary.

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