verify_success_signature

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It explains that verifying the signature guards against CSRF/tampering and clarifies the semantic meaning of a successful verification (user returned to success page, not payment credited). While it doesn't explicitly state it's read-only, the verification nature implies no side effects. The context about SuccessURL vs ResultURL adds important behavioral insight.

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 short paragraph with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the purpose and provides critical context (SuccessURL vs ResultURL) efficiently. Every sentence 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?

Given the tool's complexity (signature verification with two URL types) and the presence of an output schema (context signals indicate true), the description provides complete context: it explains the purpose, the semantic difference from ResultURL, and the security benefit. The agent has enough information to use the tool 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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions (e.g., 'params' as query-string params, 'password1' fallback to env var). The schema already explains the parameters adequately, and the description's value is primarily in usage context rather than parameter semantics.

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 verb 'Verify' and the specific resource 'SignatureValue on a Robokassa SuccessURL redirect'. It distinguishes this tool from the sibling verify_result_signature by explaining the difference between SuccessURL and ResultURL, ensuring correct selection.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool (for the browser-side SuccessURL redirect after payment) and contrasts it with ResultURL, noting that it does not confirm payment crediting. This provides clear guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like verify_result_signature.

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