Verify counterparty (verify before you pay)

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

The description states that the tool returns a signed verdict grounded in facts, which gives insight into the output nature. However, it does not disclose whether the tool is idempotent, read-only, or has side effects. Since no annotations exist, this gap reduces transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence without any unnecessary words. Every part is relevant and contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 the tool's simplicity, the description lacks details on parameter semantics, behavioral traits, and explicit usage boundaries. It does not provide enough information for an agent to use the tool correctly without prior knowledge.

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?

The description does not explain the 'domain' parameter beyond what is obvious from the tool's name. With 0% schema coverage, the description should add meaning, but it fails to do so, leaving the agent without guidance on domain format or validation.

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?

Purpose is clearly stated: verify a merchant/domain/counterparty before payment or trust. The description distinguishes this from sibling tools by focusing on verification rather than reputation or identity.

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 clear usage context: 'BEFORE an agent pays or trusts it.' This tells the agent when to invoke this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast with sibling tools like rhinogent_get_reputation.

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