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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does well: it specifies the 0.02 USDC cost on Base L2, the X-Payment header tx-hash proof, the payTo AgentWorld treasury via x402 facilitator, the POST endpoint, and that the receipt's current state is returned. It omits some edge-case behavior such as payment reversibility or whether repeated verification is allowed, but the core mechanics are unusually well exposed.

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 dense sentence with the operational tag '[INFO]' front-loaded and the payment/post steps ordered logically. It is information-rich without obvious filler, though the parenthetical chain and URL make it slightly run-on.

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 output schema exists, return-value details are not strictly needed, and the description still briefly notes the return. For a one-parameter tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, it supplies the critical payment and endpoint behavior, though it could do more to explain the contribution_id and tool boundaries.

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% for the single required contribution_id parameter, so the description must compensate. It does mention that contribution_id is POSTed to the verification endpoint, which adds usage context, but it does not explain the expected format, source, or what the identifier represents.

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 action and resource: stamping a vested CCE receipt as VERIFIED, with the payment and endpoint mechanics included. However, the '[INFO]' prefix and the how-to phrasing leave ambiguity about whether this tool performs the verification or merely returns instructions, and it does not explicitly distinguish itself from CCE siblings such as cce_attest or cce_challenge.

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?

It gives a clear reason to verify ('Only verified receipts can be sold to external buyers') and lays out the required payment and POST steps. Yet it does not say when this tool should be chosen over alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites beyond the payment flow.

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