verify_result_signature

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the verification purpose but does not state what the tool returns (e.g., boolean or string) or behavior on failure. The output schema may cover this, but the description alone is incomplete.

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 very concise: two sentences that efficiently convey purpose, context, and a critical action (respond with build_ok_response). No wasted words, and the information is front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema and three parameters with good schema descriptions, the description covers the essential context: purpose, when to use, and the required follow-up action. It lacks explicit distinction from sibling and return value details, but is largely 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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying that 'params' must contain OutSum, InvId, SignatureValue, and that Shp_* parameters are automatically incorporated. It also explains the fallback for 'password2'. This enhances understanding.

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 that the tool verifies the SignatureValue on a Robokassa ResultURL request, using specific verbs and resources. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'verify_success_signature', but the context of payment notifications is distinct enough.

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 provides clear context: use this tool upon receiving a POST to the ResultURL after checkout. It also explains the necessity of responding with `build_ok_response(inv_id)` to avoid retries, giving actionable guidance.

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