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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior, and it does state that the tool does not move money and that it verifies before updating the ledger. However, it does not explain failure handling, idempotency, or what 'update the ledger' entails, and 'without moving money' already appears in the schema's policy. It provides useful but limited behavioral context.

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 one compact sentence that front-loads the verification action and appends the critical no-money-movement constraint. Every phrase adds information, with no redundant or filler text.

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?

The tool involves cryptographic verification and a ledger update, yet the description omits preconditions, error behavior, and any sense of how it fits with siblings like 'submit_commission_mandate' or 'record_attribution.' There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description alone leaves significant gaps for an agent to call correctly.

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 only 25%, with only signed_payload having a description; the description does not mention signature_algorithm, signature_base64url, or signer_public_jwk. The phrase 'principal-signed contract/payment evidence' alludes to signed_payload but does not compensate for the missing parameter documentation. The agent is left to infer cryptographic input requirements from names and schema constraints.

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 verifies 'principal-signed contract/payment evidence' and updates the 'commission evidence ledger.' This is a specific verb+resource combination, and the phrase 'without moving money' helps differentiate it from payment-related siblings. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The description only implies that the tool is appropriate when principal-signed evidence needs verification and ledger updates. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the context from the verb 'Verify.'

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