verify_ap2_payment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return value format ({verified: true}) and the verification logic (checking amount and recipient against a mandate), but it doesn't mention error conditions, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if verification fails. This is a partial disclosure for a verification tool.

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 single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, parameters, and outcome without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the main action and result.

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 verification tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and return format but lacks details on error handling, behavioral constraints, and full parameter guidance. It's minimally adequate but has clear gaps in completeness.

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 67% (2 out of 3 parameters have descriptions). The description adds context by explaining that 'mandate_id' comes from 'generate_ap2_mandate' and 'tx_id' is submitted by a paying agent, which clarifies semantics beyond the schema. However, it doesn't detail the 'network' parameter beyond the enum values.

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 specific action ('verify an AP2 payment') and the outcome ('returns {verified: true} if the on-chain transaction satisfies the mandate's amount and recipient'). It distinguishes this from siblings like 'verify_payment' or 'verify_mpp_receipt' by specifying AP2 payments and mandate-based verification.

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 when needing to check if a transaction meets a mandate's criteria, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'verify_payment' or 'verify_mpp_receipt'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving some ambiguity about context.

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