verify_payment_activation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the action ('verify') and outcome ('activated'), but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what happens on failure. For a mutation tool (implied by activation), this is a significant gap in 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the outcome. Every word earns its place with zero waste, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 the tool's complexity (a mutation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It covers the purpose and outcome but lacks behavioral details, error information, or return values. It's adequate as a minimum viable description but has clear gaps for effective agent use.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as parameter interactions or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting, but no extra value is provided.

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 with specific verbs ('verify an on-chain payment') and resource ('PRO tier activation'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_activation_status' or 'get_payment_activation' by focusing on verification rather than retrieval. It explicitly mentions the outcome ('your agent is activated with PRO tier'), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 context (after a payment transaction) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_activation_status' or 'claim_free_pro_upgrade'. It provides no exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the purpose alone.

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