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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: validity/unexpiry binding semantics, the anti-fabrication rule, trial attempt limits and daily capacity, the paid/trial transport split, the 24-hour result-recovery window requiring the original request and X-Payment-Signature, and an explicit scope disclaimer (evidence triage only, human review required). Non-read-only status is consistent with the disclosed payment behavior; no contradiction.

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 purpose and routing sentences are tightly front-loaded, but the body then carries a large block of commerce boilerplate (free trial tooling, HTTP adapter shape, pricing URL, disclaimers) that is tangential to invoking this MCP tool and dilutes the operational instructions.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description nonetheless covers the key result signal (gate_passed), all required inputs, prerequisites, payment/auth conditions, and scope limits. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 67%, and the description names all three required arguments and adds usage semantics the schema lacks: compute the two hashes yourself rather than copying them from the receipt. That guards against the most likely misuse, though it doesn't restate format details already in 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Verify a signed readiness receipt') and the exact semantics of the outcome ('Returns gate_passed only for a valid, unexpired, exactly bound continue decision'). It also explicitly disclaims what it does not do ('does not authorize or perform the action'), which cleanly separates it from decision_check and pre_action_check.

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?

Gives explicit prerequisites ('First obtain a real signed receipt from decision_check'), an explicit exclusion ('does not authorize or perform the action'), and a procedural warning ('Compute expected_request_hash and expected_action_hash from your own intended request/action; do not copy bindings blindly'). An agent knows when to call this and when to call the sibling instead.

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