verify_receipt

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It goes above and beyond by detailing all possible status values, warning that 'reversed' or 'refunded' with 'payout_pending' means the buyer has NOT got the money back, and instructing the agent to proactively inform the user of status changes. No contradictions with annotations (none exist).

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 dense but well-structured, using dashes and explicit value lists to organize the two axes. It front-loads the purpose, and every sentence/section adds unique value—status definitions, funds status logic, and an important caveat. No filler or redundancy.

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 has no output schema, the description fully compensates by explaining the return structure (two axes), enumerating all possible values with meanings, and providing decision rules. It is complete for an agent to correctly interpret the result and act on it.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter receipt_id, explaining it as the receipt_id from execute_payment/auto_pay_checkout. The description does not add parameter-level detail, which is fine given the schema's completeness, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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's purpose: 'Check where an order ENDED UP, and prove it.' It uses a specific verb (verify/check) and resource (receipt/order status), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like execute_payment or auto_pay_checkout by focusing on post-purchase verification. The two-axis breakdown (order_status and funds_status) further clarifies exactly what is checked.

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?

Provides clear context on when to use (after a purchase, to verify status) and even instructs on proactive follow-up if a later check shows 'reversed'. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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