verify_purchase

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the return fields (buyer, item, license, support dates), which helps set expectations, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what happens for invalid codes, or any authentication or rate-limit considerations.

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 two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and then lists the key returned information, making it quick for an agent to parse and act on.

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 one-parameter tool, the description is largely complete: it names the required input, the action, and the return fields. It lacks explicit error or invalid-code behavior, but the core call-and-verify flow is understandable without 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 description coverage is 100% and the schema already describes code as an Envato purchase code in UUID format. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond connecting the code to the sale verification action, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 uses a specific verb ('Verify') and a specific resource ('a sale by Envato purchase code'), and it names the returned data: buyer, item, license, and support dates. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_sales or get_item, which serve different purposes.

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 usage: call this when you have an Envato purchase code and need to verify a sale. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as list_sales or get_statement, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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