ack_verify_payment_receipt

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it explicitly states it 'Checks receipt signature, receipt claims, and optionally the embedded payment request' and discloses the return shape {valid: true/false}. It does not describe error handling or the trust model of trustedReceiptIssuers, but the core read-only verification behavior is clear.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by verification scope and return. The parenthetical upstream-tool reference is purposeful context and there is no filler.

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 single-purpose verification tool with no output schema, the description covers input provenance, what is checked, and the return format. It could explain trustedReceiptIssuers usage and failure modes, but it is sufficient for correct invocation in the obvious flow.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds pipeline context but does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Verify a signed payment receipt JWT'. It differentiates from siblings by focusing on 'payment receipt' and referencing the upstream tools (ack_sign_credential, ack_create_payment_receipt), so an agent can distinguish it from ack_verify_credential or ack_verify_jwt.

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?

Provides clear pipeline context: the receipt comes 'from ack_sign_credential after ack_create_payment_receipt', telling the agent when in the flow to use this tool. It also mentions the optional embedded payment request. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling verification tools (e.g., ack_verify_payment_request), so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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