Confirm a discount payment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety and idempotency are covered structurally. The description adds that the server verifies the on-chain transaction receipt, which is genuinely useful context. It does not say what state is written on success, what happens on a failed verification, or whether auth is required.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no filler. It could be slightly tighter by folding the verification note into the same sentence, but there is no waste.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. What is missing is flow context: this sits inside a discount validation/payment sequence with several sibling tools, and the description never places it in that sequence or states what conditions must hold before calling.

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%: code, amount, txHash, and chainId each carry clear inline descriptions, including accepted formats and accepted chains. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: confirm a USDC payment for an INSR discount code. An agent can tell it is the confirmation step of the discount payment flow. However, it does not differentiate itself from siblings such as insumer_check_discount, insumer_validate_code, insumer_acp_discount, or insumer_ucp_discount, which occupy adjacent slots in the same flow.

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 never says when to call this tool versus the alternatives — whether it must follow insumer_validate_code or insumer_check_discount, or what happens if it is called twice. No prerequisites, ordering, or exclusions are given, leaving usage entirely to inference from the name.

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