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.