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

Adds real context beyond annotations: 'Free, no key' discloses that no authentication or cost is involved, and it names the crypto primitives and anchoring chains being checked. It does not describe the shape of the result (e.g. pass/fail vs. detailed breakdown), which matters since there is no output schema.

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?

One dense sentence with the key scoping constraint (one order's receipt, not a Word Pass) front-loaded, followed by what is verified. Long but every clause carries information; the nested parentheticals slightly burden readability.

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 read-only, idempotent verification tool with a fully described single parameter, the description covers what is checked and that no key/fee is needed. With no output schema, it leaves the result format unexplained, which is the only meaningful 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% and the single parameter is already documented as 'the receipt object exactly as get_order returned it'. The description adds no further detail such as whether the receipt can be stale or from any order.

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?

States a specific verb (Check) and resource (one order's PazAIr receipt) and enumerates exactly what is verified: Ed25519 signature, Merkle proof into a Bitcoin/Stellar-anchored daily root, and the signed order outcome. The parenthetical '(not a Word Pass)' explicitly separates it from sibling verification tools like check_word_pass and verify_pass.

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 'not a Word Pass' exclusion plus 'one order's receipt' and the schema note pointing at get_order make the intended input source clear. It stops short of an explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or naming why_order as the alternative for order-state questions.

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