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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses the verification steps and limitations. It mentions the optional batchAnchor parameter and its effect on the verification scope, leaving no behavioral ambiguity.

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 paragraph that is dense but not overly long. It front-loads the purpose and verification steps. However, it could be more scannable with bullet points or structured sections.

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 tool's complexity (5 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the key aspects: verification steps, limitations, and the effect of the optional parameter. It does not describe return values or error conditions, but without an output schema, this is acceptable.

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?

While the input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for each parameter, the description adds significant meaning by explaining how the parameters are used in the verification logic and the role of the optional batchAnchor. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool verifies a spend/GMV artifact bundle and lists five specific verification checks. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like verify-receipt and verify-reward-commitment by focusing on multi-artifact verification, and it explicitly defines its scope as portable artifact verification.

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 explains that this tool performs portable artifact verification and does not assert payout, chain finality, or validator quorum unless specific artifacts are provided. This gives clear context for when to use it, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools for those other assertions.

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