attest_delivery

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it judges only consistency (not service quality), records payment receipt but requires separate on-chain confirmation, and notes that schema conformance is structural. It also mentions the paid nature of the hosted engine and links to documentation for verification.

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 well-structured with labeled sections (PURPOSE, GUIDELINES, PARAMETERS, LIMITATIONS, EXAMPLE) and front-loaded key points. Though slightly long, every sentence adds value and there is no redundancy.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return types (delivery_verdict, payment binding, attestation) and notes that the full response is a self-contained dispute artifact. It also provides example output and mentions the need to save it, ensuring completeness for an agent.

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%, but the description goes beyond by explaining each parameter's role in context (e.g., responseText is 'the delivered payload verbatim', paymentReceipt is 'X-PAYMENT-RESPONSE value'). An example call further clarifies how to use the parameters together.

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's purpose as 'Neutral delivery verification for agentic commerce.' It specifies that it verifies delivered content and returns a signed receipt binding payment to delivery to content. This distinguishes it from siblings like verify_claim, as it focuses on delivery integrity rather than fact-checking.

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 explicit usage instructions: 'call AFTER a paid third-party call whose output you will act on or account for.' It provides branching logic based on delivery_verdict (consistent -> proceed, degraded -> caution, inconsistent -> do not rely, unverifiable -> no contradiction). It also advises saving the receipt for dispute evidence.

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