cleared_check

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the probe=false default (fast, catalog-safe) and implies non-destructive verification. It doesn't state side effects or required auth, but for a read-like check, the description gives useful behavioral context. Minor gap: no mention of rate limits or termination behavior.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Return fields are listed concisely, and the probe note is placed at the end. Very efficient and structured.

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?

For a tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, key defaults, and return values. It lacks explicit edge cases or usage examples, but given the simplicity, it's almost complete. A 4 is appropriate.

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 100%, so both parameters are documented. The description adds meaning by explaining probe=false is 'fast, catalog-safe' and default, which enriches the parameter semantics. However, it doesn't explain the impact of probe=true beyond live-probing. Baseline 3 is justified because schema covers the basics.

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 states a specific verb ('verify') and resource ('an origin before pay'), and enumerates the return fields (pass, score, payToMismatch, tier, card URL, provenance). It differentiates from siblings like get_trust_score or check_domain_status by focusing on 'before pay' verification. The title 'Cleared Check' adds clarity.

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 implies usage: verify an origin before payment, which is clear context. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use it, but it hints at the probe setting for agent farms. Lacks explicit 'when to use' vs 'when not to use' guidance, so a 4 is appropriate.

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