gate_check_delivery

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully carries the burden. It explicitly states the tool is read-only and free, and notes a key nuance: it records which bytes were delivered, not content correctness. This is comprehensive for a simple read operation.

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 concise at three sentences, front-loading the core action and adding necessary nuance. No superfluous information.

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 one parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, behavioral traits, and parameter origin. It is complete for effective agent selection and invocation.

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% for the single parameter, but the description adds valuable context: payment_id is returned by gate_fetch and only exists for escrow-settled payments. This goes beyond the schema's description and aids correct usage.

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 checks delivery hashes for a payment, comparing gate and agent records. It specifies the purpose: confirm purchase arrival or show discrepancy. This differentiates it from sibling tools like gate_fetch (which returns payment IDs) and datahub_buy (purchase).

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 when to use the tool (post-purchase verification) and the parameter description clarifies that payment_id only exists for escrow-settled payments, implying it should not be used for prepaid or subscription access. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives.

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