agent-offset-clearinghouse

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'mass conservation totals' but does not state whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, requires authorization, or any other behavior beyond its output.

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, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. No unnecessary words or redundancy; it earns its place efficiently.

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 tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description is somewhat adequate. However, it could benefit from specifying what 'credit book' entails, the format of output, or any aggregation behavior to fully inform the agent.

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 are no parameters in the input schema, so the description does not need to add parameter semantics. It correctly omits parameter details, and no additional meaning is required beyond the schema which has 100% coverage.

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?

Description clearly states it provides the full credit book with per-credit and book-wide mass conservation totals, indicating a specific resource and scope. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools such as 'list_credit' or 'net_position', which may overlap in purpose.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusion conditions, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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 provided, the description fully discloses key behaviors: cheapest-first matching, exactly-once idempotency, content-addressed certificate with per-fill costs, payment via escrow, and dry_run mode. This provides sufficient transparency for an agent to understand the tool's side effects and safety.

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 extremely concise, using two sentences with clear bullet points. It front-loads the core purpose and then lists key features efficiently, with no unnecessary words.

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 complexity of financial tool with 4 parameters, an output schema, and many siblings, the description covers the main aspects but could mention expected input formats (e.g., buyer identifier) or output schema highlights to be fully self-contained. It is still quite complete for enabling correct tool selection and invocation.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must clarify parameter meaning. It explains mass_g as the amount, purchase_id for idempotency, and dry_run for preview. However, it does not specify formats or constraints for buyer or purchase_id, leaving ambiguity. It adds value over the schema but insufficiently compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb 'retire' and identifies the resource 'verified credits for a buyer'. It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings by mentioning 'cheapest-first matching' and 'exactly-once (idempotent)' behavior, which are unique to this tool among the listed siblings.

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 explicitly explains the dry_run parameter, advising when to use it to preview without mutation. However, it does not directly compare to alternative tools like buy_offset_budget or indicate when not to use this tool, which is a minor gap.

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?

Discloses key behaviors: never overspends, selects cheapest-first, idempotent on purchase_id, dry_run previews without mutation. Since no annotations exist, description carries full burden and addresses it well.

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 sentences, front-loaded with core operation, use case, and key properties. No redundant words; every sentence adds value.

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?

Covers main behavior and use case but lacks details on edge cases (e.g., insufficient budget) and parameter specifics. Output schema exists but description does not reference it. Adequate for basic understanding.

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 has 0% description coverage. Description mentions budget_minor as cost limit and purchase_id for idempotency, but does not explain buyer or dry_run semantics in detail. Leaves some parameter meaning unclear.

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 performs a budget-constrained offset purchase, selecting the cheapest verified mass that fits within budget_minor without overspending. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying money-denominated obligation and idempotency.

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?

Explicitly says it's built for callers with a currency amount obligation, e.g., revenue share. Provides context for when to use this tool, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling 'buy_offset'.

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?

Without annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: idempotent, only certifies new proceeds, creates a tamper-evident hash chain. It does not cover authorization needs or error cases, but for a single-parameter tool this is sufficient.

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 sentences front-load the core action and purpose, followed by idempotency details. No redundant or vague verbiage.

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 description covers purpose, behavior, and downstream use (CEO transfers). It lacks input format for `batch_id` and error scenarios, but the presence of an output schema and single parameter makes this adequate.

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%, but the tool description explains that `batch_id` identifies the disbursement schedule to freeze and that the operation is idempotent on it. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema field name.

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 that the tool freezes a disbursement schedule into a certified, tamper-evident batch using content-addressing and hash-chaining. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like `verify_disbursement` by explaining it is the record used for actual Stripe transfers.

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 mentions idempotency on batch_id and that only newly-accrued proceeds are certified, avoiding double disbursement. It implies use as a precursor to CEO transfers, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like `settlement_batch`.

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 covers key behaviors: it's idempotent for already-delisted credits, retains audit history, and requires authentication. This gives the agent a good understanding of side effects and constraints.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

While the description covers the core operation and the output schema exists, the lack of parameter details leaves it incomplete. For a simple tool, it's adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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%, and the description provides no details about the 'credit_id' or 'reason' parameters. It fails to add any meaning beyond the schema, which is a critical 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'remove a credit from the active fill path while retaining its listing and retirement history for audit.' This is a specific verb-resource combination and distinguishes it from siblings like 'list_credit'.

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 notes it's an 'Admin operation' and requires 'Gateway state-change authentication', providing some context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'buy_offset' or 'verify_retirement', and lacks exclusion criteria.

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 provided. The description only says 'self-description' but does not disclose read-only nature, side effects, or output characteristics. Behavioral traits are not communicated.

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 sentence, concise and to the point. However, 'Fleet-standard' is jargon that reduces clarity slightly; could be more straightforward.

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 parameters and an output schema (unknown content), the description is minimally complete. It lacks context on what the output contains or how the tool fits in the broader system.

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?

No parameters exist, so baseline score of 4 applies. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable given zero parameters.

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 'Fleet-standard self-description' indicates the tool provides a description of itself, but 'Fleet-standard' is ambiguous and doesn't specify what aspects are described (e.g., capabilities, configuration). It is distinct from siblings but lacks specific verb or resource scope.

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 tool versus siblings. The description does not mention alternatives or exclusion criteria.

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?

Despite no annotations, the description fully discloses that it is read-only and details the revenue split (15% withhold, 85% payout). It also clarifies the treatment of unregistered projects, providing comprehensive 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 relatively concise but includes extra context about pending registration that, while useful, slightly reduces focus. It is front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 tool's simplicity (one optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential logic. However, it could benefit from mentioning the output shape or how the preview is returned.

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 only parameter, project_id, is not described in the text. The description implies the tool operates per project but does not explain the parameter's purpose or default behavior (e.g., what happens if omitted). With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to add meaning beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states it's an automated disbursement preview for verified restoration projects, specifying the split between Viridis withhold and project payout. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like certify_disbursement and verify_disbursement by being read-only.

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 indicates when to use this tool (for verified projects) and mentions that funded-but-unregistered projects are handled separately (pending_registration). However, it does not explicitly list alternatives or state 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.

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states that it fetches a purchase by ID, implying a read-only operation, but does not explain what happens with invalid IDs, authentication needs, rate limits, or return behavior.

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, short sentence that communicates the core action efficiently. However, it is overly brief and could include more context without becoming verbose.

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 tool has only one parameter and an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. However, it fails to leverage the output schema to clarify what is returned, and it offers no guidance among 17 sibling tools.

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%, so the description must add meaning. It mentions 'by id' but does not clarify the format or expected value of purchase_id (e.g., UUID, integer). The schema provides a title but no description, leaving ambiguity.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('past purchase / offset certificate') with a clear method ('by id'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like book, buy_offset, and verify_certificate, which are about creating or verifying rather than retrieving.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like verify_certificate or verify_retirement might overlap in functionality, but no exclusions or contextual hints are given.

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 full burden. It discloses that verification_ref is required and unverified credits cannot be listed, and explains the effect of passing Verra parameters. However, it does not explicitly state that this tool creates a new credit entry or mention any side effects, permissions, or idempotency.

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 long, with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides critical usage guidance. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 tool has 10 parameters and an output schema exists, the description is moderately complete. It covers the key behavioral aspects and provides guidance for the Verra scenario, but lacks explanations for required parameters like issuer and project_id, and does not differentiate from siblings like 'book'.

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 description adds meaning for verification_ref and Verra-related parameters (vcs_project_id, serial_number, vintage, methodology, registry) but does not explain other required fields like issuer, project_id, mass_g, or price_minor_per_kg. With 0% schema coverage, it partially compensates but leaves gaps.

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 verb 'List' and resource 'conservation credit on the book', distinguishing it from siblings like 'delist_credit'. It also specifies the critical requirement of verification_ref, making the purpose precise.

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 explicitly states when verification_ref is required and provides specific guidance for trading on the Verra network, including which parameters to pass. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives like 'book'.

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 provided, the description is minimal and does not disclose behavioral details such as whether the operation is read-only, performance characteristics, or any side effects. It merely states the action without 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 a single, efficient sentence with no redundant information. It is front-loaded and directly conveys the tool's purpose.

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?

While an output schema exists to document return values, the description lacks details about listing behavior such as sorting, filtering, or pagination. For a simple parameterless tool this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

No parameters exist, so the baseline score applies. The description adds no semantic value beyond the schema since there are no parameters to describe.

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 specifies the verb 'List' and the resource 'all registered restoration projects with their metadata'. It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'register_project' (adds projects) and 'list_credit' (lists credits).

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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_credit' or 'project_funding'. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual usage notes.

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?

The description explains the computation (emitted minus retired) and the condition for carbon_accountable, giving insight into behavior. However, it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or has side effects. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but falls short on safety guarantees.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. Every component adds value with no redundancy.

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 net calculation tool with an output schema and two parameters, the description covers the essential logic. It does not explain the output schema or usage context, but given the tool's simplicity, it is largely complete.

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 description adds context by mentioning 'emitted (from agent-compute-ledger)', linking to the emitted_g parameter. However, it does not explain the 'buyer' parameter or the format/units of emitted_g. With 0% schema coverage, the description partially compensates but leaves gaps.

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 that the tool computes the buyer's carbon position by subtracting retired from emitted, with a condition for being fully offset. It conveys the specific purpose but does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like 'buy_offset' or 'book'.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'buy_offset' or 'list_credit'. The description lacks context about prerequisites or appropriate scenarios for invocation.

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 provided, the description carries full burden and clearly declares the tool as read-only. It explains what data is returned and the context of the clearinghouse. No hidden behaviors or side effects are omitted. This is comprehensive for a simple query tool.

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 four sentences long, front-loading the core purpose. The final sentence ('This is what makes the clearinghouse fund restoration') is slightly redundant but not harmful. Overall concise and well-structured.

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 that there is an output schema (though not provided), the description sufficiently covers the input behavior (optional project_id), output contents (earned/owed amounts), and read-only nature. It provides a complete mental model for a user.

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 (project_id) has no schema description, but the description explains its effect: pass it for one project, omit for all. This adds essential meaning beyond the schema definition. A slight improvement would be specifying the format or constraints of the ID, but it is adequate.

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 tool as a supply-side disbursement ledger, specifying that it shows earnings and owed amounts for restoration projects, with specific fields (gross_proceeds_minor + retired_g). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like certify_disbursement or buy_offset.

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 explicitly states usage: pass a project_id for one project, or omit for all projects. It also notes the tool is read-only and that the CEO settles payouts, implying this is for viewing only. However, it does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use it, which would improve clarity.

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?

Given no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: verification_ref is required, project_id is immutable, and only verified conservation is funded. However, it does not mention side effects, authorization needs, or rate limits.

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 concise: three sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the purpose and then adds key constraints. Minor improvement could be to separate parameter details more clearly.

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 7 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (not shown), the description covers core purpose and constraints but lacks parameter semantics and guidance on idempotency or error scenarios. It meets minimum completeness for a creation tool but leaves gaps.

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%, so the description must explain parameters. It only adds meaning for project_id (immutable) and verification_ref (required). The other 5 parameters (name, location, beneficiary, methodology, registry_ref) are not explained, leaving the agent without guidance on optional fields.

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 registers a verified restoration project for funding retirements. It uses specific verb-resource pairing ('Register a VERIFIED restoration project') and the context of sibling tools like book, buy, list confirms it's distinct.

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 implies the tool is for initial project registration before funding, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., list_projects for viewing). No exclusion criteria or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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?

The description discloses that it is read-only and optionally filters by ISO-8601 timestamp, but with no annotations, falls short on detailing auth needs, error behaviors, or data freshness.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and efficiently includes scope and optional filter.

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 presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, input parameters, and optional filtering, though it omits details like ordering or error responses.

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%, so description must compensate. It partially covers 'since' as an optional ISO-8601 timestamp but does not describe 'buyer' beyond its name.

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 it is a read-only cash-settlement summary for a buyer, listing exact sums of retirements. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying its unique role as a settlement statement for human transfer.

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 implies when to use (for a buyer's settlement summary) but does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare with siblings like get_purchase or net_position.

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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the verification process (hash recomputation and ledger check) but omits details on side effects (likely read-only), permission requirements, response format, or error scenarios.

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 sentence, making it concise. However, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, which limits its utility. It is not overly verbose but could be improved with a clearer structure.

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 presence of sibling verification tools and an output schema, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain what the output represents (e.g., boolean, status), when verification is needed, or how to interpret results. The tool's complexity (nested object parameter) warrants more detailed 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?

The input schema has 0% coverage for parameter descriptions, and the description does not explain the 'certificate' object's structure, fields, or expected format. This leaves the agent entirely reliant on the schema, which provides no semantic guidance.

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 it verifies an offset certificate by recomputing its hash and checking the ledger, which is specific and distinguishes it from other verify tools that target different resources (e.g., disbursement, retirement). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings beyond the resource name.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like verify_disbursement or verify_retirement, leaving the agent with no contextual decision support.

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 bears full burden. It discloses that the tool recomputes a hash chain and confirms conservation, but does not explicitly state whether it is read-only or has side effects. The word 'verify' suggests non-destructive, but lacks explicit safety or permission details.

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 consists of two concise sentences that front-load the action and end with accessibility. No unnecessary words or tangents.

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 no parameters and an output schema (not shown), the description sufficiently explains the tool's purpose and who can use it. It could mention the output format or more about the hash chain, but overall complete.

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 are zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds meaning by explaining the tool's function without needing parameter details. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4.

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 disbursements by recomputing the hash chain and confirming conservation. It uses specific verbs ('recompute', 'confirm') and resource ('disbursement certificate hash chain'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'certify_disbursement' and 'verify_certificate'.

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 implies any party can audit, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'verify_certificate' or 'certify_disbursement'. There is no guidance on prerequisites or when not to use.

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 carries full burden. It explicitly states the tool is read-only and describes the return values (covered, retired_g, shortfall_g, backing credits). It does not disclose error handling or auth requirements, but for a verification tool, the behavior is well outlined.

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 sentences with zero waste. First sentence states purpose and key parameters, second lists returns. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 description explains the core function and return values. An output schema exists (though not shown), so the description need not detail returns. It could mention prerequisites or error conditions, but overall it is complete for a tool of this complexity.

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%, so the description compensates by explaining the role of purchase_id (offset_ref) and required_g (minimum grams). While it doesn't add type or format details, it provides meaningful context beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states the tool verifies that a retirement (identified by purchase_id) covers at least required_g grams of verified credits. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like verify_certificate by focusing on the retirement amount check for neutrality claims.

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 implies use when confirming a purchase's retirement satisfies a minimum credit amount. It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the context and sibling names provide sufficient differentiation.

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 full burden. It declares 'Read-only' (safe), explains the tool generates records for submission under the Viridis Verra account, and notes future automation ('auto-posts when Verra's transaction API is live'). This is good disclosure, though error behavior is omitted.

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 reasonably concise and well-structured: purpose first, then output contents, safety note, and usage instruction. However, the phrase 'portal today; auto-posts when Verra's transaction API is live' adds slight verbosity. Overall efficient.

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 tool has 2 parameters and an output schema, the description covers output hints but completely neglects input parameter documentation. This leaves a significant gap, making the tool harder to use correctly without external knowledge.

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 description does not mention the input parameters (purchase_id, retirement_reason) at all, despite 0% schema coverage. It focuses entirely on output fields, leaving the agent without guidance on what to provide or the meaning of the default for retirement_reason.

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's purpose: 'Generate the Verra-portal-ready retirement record(s) for a retirement made against Verra supply'. It lists specific output components (VCS project id, serial, vintage, etc.) and distinguishes from sibling tools like verify_retirement and verra_supply by focusing on generation of records for submission.

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 provides context ('for a retirement made against Verra supply') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is given, leaving the agent to infer usage from purpose alone.

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?

The description clearly states 'read-only' and explains the data provenance (project id, serial, vintage) and cross-referencing capability. However, with no annotations provided, it fails to disclose other behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, or response size constraints. The retirement economics (85/15 split) is market context, not tool behavior. An output schema exists, so return structure is covered, but additional behavioral context is minimal.

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 three sentences long, starting with the core concept (the book). It front-loads the key information. The final sentence about retirement economics is tangential to the tool's operation but adds context without excessive bloat. Could be slightly tighter by merging the first two sentences, but overall concise.

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 no parameters and an existing output schema, the description provides adequate context about the data source (Verra VCS book) and read-only nature. However, it does not clarify how this tool differs from similar list/query tools (e.g., list_credit) or what 'supply' means in the tool name. The completeness is adequate but has notable gaps in purpose and usage differentiation.

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 are zero parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter information. It meets this baseline adequately.

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 uses a noun phrase ('the tradeable Verra VCS book') rather than a verb, failing to explicitly state what action the tool performs. It implies a read/list operation via 'read-only' but does not specify the core function (e.g., query, view, list). This vagueness makes it hard for an agent to distinguish from sibling tools like list_credit or net_position.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions 'read-only' but does not contrast with write tools (like buy_offset) or other query tools (like list_credit, net_position). There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use advice.

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