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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context the annotations do not carry: what exactly is checked (hash continuity, timestamps, ordering) and the 0.010 USDC cost of the call. It still omits what a failure result looks like.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the verification targets and tucks the price at the end. No filler, though the arrow notation for the lifecycle is compressed enough to require inference.

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?

There is no output schema, no parameter documentation, and a nested 'expected' object, so the description should do more. It communicates scope and cost but leaves the return semantics (pass/fail shape, mismatch reporting) and the role of 'expected' unexplained.

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% across three parameters (journey_id, events, expected) with a nested object and array constraints (minItems 2, maxItems 128). The description vaguely gestures at event content through 'hash continuity' and 'ordered lifecycle' but never explains journey_id, what belongs in events, or the role of expected, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 names a specific verb (verify) and the exact resource scope: hash continuity, timestamps, and an ordered intent→quote→payment→delivery lifecycle. That is far more concrete than the sibling 'verify' or 'transaction_assurance', though it does not explicitly name how it differs from those near-neighbors.

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?

Usage is implied by the lifecycle wording — you call this to validate a recorded journey's integrity — but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no pointer to alternatives like payment_receipt_reconciler or transaction_assurance for overlapping verification needs.

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