aps_verify_attribution_consent

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the return format and inputs but does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, or error behavior. For a verification tool, it is reasonably transparent but could explicitly note it is read-only.

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 without wasted words. The first sentence defines purpose and scope, the second specifies output. Efficiently structured and easy to parse.

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?

The description covers purpose, inputs, and return format adequately for a simple verification tool. However, it lacks explanation of error handling, prerequisites (e.g., receipt existence), and the exact structure of the return object, which is missing an output schema.

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 descriptions already cover both parameters, but the tool description adds meaning by listing the specific receipt fields being verified (id, citer signature, consent signature, expiry), providing context beyond the schema's 'AttributionReceipt JSON'.

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 (id, citer signature, consent signature, expiry) and the return format. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like aps_verify_attribution_primitive by specifying 'end-to-end' verification.

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 when to use this tool (for full receipt verification) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like aps_verify_attribution_primitive or aps_verify_settlement. No 'when-not-to-use' guidance is provided.

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