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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that gate_passed is returned only for a valid, unexpired, exactly bound continue decision; that the tool does not authorize or perform the action; and that it only checks reference integrity and quote occurrence, not semantic entailment or factual truth. It also points to remediation.issues for repair paths, which is useful 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 core purpose and usage guidance are front-loaded, but the description is heavily bloated with trial attempts, HTTP alternatives, x402 payment details, pricing URLs, and recovery instructions. Much of this does not help an agent decide whether or how to invoke decision_verify and buries the useful limits and parameter guidance.

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 verification tool with three required parameters and an output schema, the description provides enough context to invoke it correctly: prerequisites, hash computation guidance, validity conditions, limits, and remediation. The additional payment and trial details are excessive but do not leave an operational gap in the core call semantics.

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 names all three required arguments and adds crucial semantics: expected_request_hash and expected_action_hash must be computed from the caller's own intended request/action rather than copied from the receipt. This meaningfully supplements the schema, whose coverage is only 67%, and prevents a common misuse.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb and resource: verify a signed readiness receipt against the caller's expected request and action hashes. It distinguishes the tool from the sibling decision_check by explaining that a receipt must first be obtained there. The core purpose is unambiguous despite later noise.

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 says to obtain a real signed receipt from decision_check, compute the expected hashes from the caller's own intended request/action, not copy bindings blindly, and never fabricate a receipt. These are direct when-to-use and precondition instructions, not inferred.

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