aps_verify_attribution_consent

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions verification components and the return value but does not state whether it mutates state, the nature of 'end-to-end' verification, failure behaviors, or how the optional 'now' parameter affects the evaluation. 'Representation boundary' adds little clarity.

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 compact sentence that includes purpose, scope, and return value. It is concise and front-loaded, though 'Representation boundary' could be removed as mildly cryptic and unnecessary.

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 two parameters and no output schema, the description provides a reasonable overview, but it lacks guidance on when to use this versus related verification tools, detailed semantics of 'end-to-end', and any behavioral caveats. It is adequate but not complete.

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 both parameters, so the description is not required to add parameter details. It mentions receipt fields, but this does not directly enhance the parameter semantics beyond what the schema already says. Meets the baseline.

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 an AttributionReceipt 'end-to-end', listing the specific components checked (id, signatures, expiry). It distinguishes this from sibling tools that verify primitives or projections, and also states the return shape.

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 usage is implied by the description: use when you need to verify a full AttributionReceipt. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it differs from related verification tools like aps_verify_attribution_primitive or aps_verify_attribution_projection.

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