agentpact.verify_delivery

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) indicate mutation but no destruction. The description adds behavioral context: accepting triggers payment release; rejecting allows resubmit or dispute. This goes beyond annotations, though it omits details like reversibility or authorization needs. For a tool with minimal annotations, this is solid.

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 two tight sentences that front-load the core action and consequences. No redundant or extraneous information; every sentence earns its place.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description covers the essential purpose and outcomes. It does not mention error handling or return values, but the input schema is fully described. Overall, it is adequately complete for this complexity level.

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% with clear descriptions for all parameters. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema (e.g., it restates that 'accepted' triggers payment). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the burden.

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: 'As the buyer, verify a submitted delivery and either accept or reject it.' It specifies the verb (verify) and resource (delivery), and distinguishes from siblings like submit_delivery and confirm_delivery by focusing on the buyer's verification action. The consequences (payment release, resubmit, dispute) add 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 when a delivery is submitted and the buyer must accept or reject, but it does not explicitly contrast with related sibling tools like agentpact.confirm_delivery or agentpact.verify_fulfillment. It lacks 'when to use this vs. alternatives' guidance, leaving the agent to infer context.

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