ddg_receipt_verify_design

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

Even without annotations, the description transparently communicates that the tool is a design contract and not yet functional. This key behavioral trait (non-live, planning stage) is clearly stated, helping the agent avoid misuse.

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?

Two concise sentences: the first states the tool's purpose, the second adds essential context about liveness. No redundant or irrelevant information.

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 that this is a design tool with an output schema, the description should mention what the output represents (e.g., a contract specification). It is silent on the output, leaving the agent to guess. However, for a non-live planning tool, the core purpose and limitation are covered.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no information about the two parameters (order_id, receipt_hash). The agent only knows their names and types, missing details on format, purpose, or constraints.

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 states 'Describe the planned free receipt-verification tool contract,' which is a clear verb-resource pair indicating a design/planning tool. It distinguishes itself from sibling operational tools like ddg_order_status and ddg_submit_order by being explicitly non-live and design-focused.

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 context on when not to use the tool ('intentionally marked not-live until /v1/receipt-verify is implemented'). However, it does not explicitly state when to use it or compare it to alternative tools for receipt verification.

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