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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that the tool checks a response/replay and verifies a receipt, implying a verification/validation operation. It does not disclose side effects, permissions, or failure behavior, but the annotations already cover the safety profile. The description adds moderate context beyond 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 a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the main action. It earns its place by stating the core purpose without fluff, though it could be slightly more structured by separating the two checks.

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 7 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no explicit usage guidance, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the meaning of key parameters like data_classification, body_sha256, http_status, or content_type, nor does it describe the return value or how the verification result is presented. An agent would struggle to invoke this tool correctly with only the description.

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 compensate for the 7 parameters. It mentions 'buyer-submitted public response or later public replay' and 'registered terms' and 'retained receipt', which loosely maps to mode, terms_id, and body, but it does not explain data_classification, body_sha256, http_status, or content_type. The description provides only partial semantic guidance for the 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 states a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('a buyer-submitted public response or later public replay against registered terms and verify the retained receipt'). It clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from siblings like assurance_prepare and assurance_verify, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 this tool: when a buyer-submitted public response or later public replay needs to be checked against registered terms and the retained receipt verified. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, leaving some inference to the agent.

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