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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds genuinely new context: 'No new charge,' the 7-day window, retry behavior ('retries return the stored check'), the result contents, and a 'no ranking guarantee' caveat. This meaningfully exceeds what the annotations declare.

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?

Roughly four compact clauses with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. The telegraphic, fragmentary style (semicolon-separated clauses) is dense but each clause carries distinct information.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the trigger condition, cost implications, timing, retry semantics, and even summarizes the return ('which JSON-LD fields are present'). Only the parameter's exact meaning and the relationship to the sibling purchase tool remain underspecified.

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?

There is one required parameter (order_id) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the burden. 'Same original key; within 7 days' hints that the id must be the original purchase key, but it never clearly ties this to order_id or states its format, leaving the parameter only partially explained.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('live verification' of a purchased correction), which distinguishes it from the sibling kanonyr_buy_schema_repair (the purchase step). However, it never names the sibling or explicitly frames itself as the post-purchase verification step, relying on inference from 'purchased correction.'

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?

It gives clear triggering context ('after your authorized connector applies a purchased correction') and a hard window ('within 7 days; same original key'), which tells the agent when the call is valid. It stops short of naming the prerequisite sibling tool or stating when not to use it.

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