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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered structurally. The description adds two useful facts beyond that: the operation is free, and what 'verify' means (authentic and unaltered). It does not, however, say what a failed verification returns or how errors surface.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler; the core purpose is front-loaded and the cost note is a compact trailing clause. Nothing is wasted.

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 one-parameter, read-only verification tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers purpose, precondition, and cost. The only gap is the outcome semantics of a failed verification, which is minor since no output schema exists to lean on.

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?

The single parameter has 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already states it is the full receipt object. The description only adds the provenance hint ('from a previous check'), so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (confirm/verify) and resource (receipt) and adds the provenance constraint that the receipt must come from a previous check. It is clearly distinct in intent from the sibling tools (check_balance, check_counterparty, screen_sanctions), though it does not name them explicitly.

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 clause 'a receipt returned by a previous check' implies the precondition for calling this tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternative tools. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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