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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context beyond that: the return format is signed JSON with provenance, there is a $0.05 per-call cost, and the tool carries compliance obligations under EU AI Act Art. 14 and KYA-OS. No contradiction with the annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core action and target come first, followed by return format, compliance context, and cost. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 full output schema and well-documented parameters, this description covers purpose, return behavior, compliance context, and cost. It does not explicitly describe prerequisites beyond 'completed', but the schema and annotations make the tool safe and callable without much additional context.

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 100%, so the schema fully explains transaction_id, agent_did, and amount_usdc. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond that, but because the schema already carries the burden, a baseline of 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?

The description clearly identifies the specific verb (verify) and resource (completed M2M transaction evidence pack, Lean 4 hash, and settlement). This is distinct from sibling tools like verify_agent_attestation or verify_site_certification, even without naming them, because the M2M transaction + evidence pack + Lean 4 hash scope is unique.

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 'Verify a completed...' implies when the tool is relevant and implies a prerequisite (the transaction must be completed). However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling alternative to prefer, so usage guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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