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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely useful context by disclosing the cost (0.010 USDC) and the invariants checked, but says nothing about return behavior or how failures are reported. Adequate but not rich.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the verification targets before the cost. Nothing is wasted, though it is dense enough that the missing parameter guidance could not have fit without restructuring.

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 three parameters, 0% schema coverage, nested objects, and no output schema, the description carries the full burden and leaves major gaps: the expected object contents, the meaning of journey_id, and what a verification result looks like. For a paid verification call, an agent cannot confidently construct the input from this alone.

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% and the schema has nested objects (events, expected) with no field-level documentation. The mention of 'hash continuity' and 'timestamps' loosely maps to artifact_sha256/observed_at and 'ordered' hints at sequence, but journey_id, the expected object, and event kinds remain unexplained in both schema and description.

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 (verify) and a precise resource (hash continuity, timestamps, ordered intent→quote→payment→delivery lifecycle), which sets it apart from generic siblings such as verify or preflight. It does not, however, explicitly name which sibling handles the adjacent cases (e.g. payment_diagnose, payment_receipt_reconciler).

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?

There is no when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives among the many payment/transaction siblings. Usage is only implied by the lifecycle scope, leaving the agent to guess when this tool is preferable to verify or payment_diagnose.

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