ack_verify_payment_request

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the return behavior (decoded request if valid, otherwise {valid:false}) but does not mention that the operation is read-only, nor does it detail failure modes like malformed tokens or issuer mismatch. It stops short of fully disclosing the tool's safety and edge-case behavior.

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 tightly written sentences with no redundancy. The main action is front-loaded, and the return format is stated succinctly. Every phrase 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 simple verification tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential return values and source context. It could elaborate on validation failure behavior, but the tool's complexity is low, and the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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%, so token and issuer are already documented. The description adds value by clarifying that the token is a payment request JWT from ack_create_payment_request and that the decoded result includes payment options and issuer, going beyond the bare schema definitions.

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 and parses a payment request JWT, and it explicitly references the source (ack_create_payment_request). It distinguishes itself from siblings like ack_verify_payment_receipt and ack_verify_jwt by narrowing the scope to payment request JWTs and describing the return payload.

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 gives clear context: it's for verifying payment request JWTs from ack_create_payment_request. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., for other JWT types) or mention alternative verify tools. The context is strong but lacks exclusions.

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