Pre-install canonical-identity verification

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose what the tool actually does (e.g., sets a pin, checks pinnability), nor does it mention side effects, permissions, reversibility, or return behavior. The single cryptic condition is insufficient.

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 a single fragmented phrase. While short, it is under-specified rather than concise; it does not front-load a clear purpose or provide structure for an agent to parse.

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 nested object parameter, absence of output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too incomplete. It does not convey what the tool returns, how it behaves, or what the required receipt object represents, making correct invocation unlikely.

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%, and the one parameter is a nested object. The description does not explain what the 'receipt' object should contain or what 'verifying CANONICAL' means in terms of parameter structure, leaving the schema entirely undocumented.

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 'PINNABLE only for a verifying CANONICAL receipt' does not state a clear action or resource. It hints at pinning and canonical receipts, but an agent cannot confidently tell what the tool does or how it differs from get_receipt or verify_candidate.

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 phrase 'only for a verifying CANONICAL receipt' implies a precondition, but it does not explain when to use this tool, when not to, or how it relates to the sibling tools get_receipt and verify_candidate. No explicit alternatives are mentioned.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and it does not disclose what happens when the receipt_id is unknown, whether any auth/scope is required, or whether results are cached/immutable. 'Stored' hints at persistence but nothing more.

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 tight sentence with the resource front-loaded after the verb. No waste, though it is almost too terse for a tool whose domain term 'verdict receipt' is unexplained.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is workable but thin: it never clarifies what a 'verdict receipt' contains or how it differs from sibling outputs. Adequate minimum, not more.

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 0%, but there is only one required string parameter and the description's 'by id' maps directly onto receipt_id, conveying the lookup semantics. It adds no format, source, or example detail beyond the obvious, so it is only minimally compensating for the schema gap.

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 ('Fetch') and resource ('stored verdict receipt') with the lookup key ('by id'), so the agent knows this is a retrieval-by-identifier operation. It does not contrast itself against siblings genesis_pin or verify_candidate, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus verify_candidate or genesis_pin, and no prerequisites or exclusions stated. The agent must infer the retrieval context entirely.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It usefully discloses payment via x402/X-PAYMENT, the free-call policy, and monthly/cached quota behavior, but it does not explain verification criteria, response behavior, or error cases.

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 and front-loads the tool's purpose before the commercial details. Every sentence adds relevant information without wasted wording.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and a nested-object input with no schema descriptions, the definition is missing important context such as input shape and return behavior. The commercial terms are useful, but the tool contract remains under-specified.

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% and the sole parameter is a nested object. The description only implies that 'candidate' is an MCP server/skill candidate; it does not describe the object structure or required fields, leaving the agent without enough information to construct valid input.

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 and resource: 'Verify canonical identity of an MCP server/skill candidate.' It is clear what the tool does, but it does not differentiate from the sibling tools genesis_pin or get_receipt.

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 pricing and quota information but no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'one free per operator ever' and plan limits, but those are commercial constraints rather than usage criteria.

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