offsets__verify_retirement

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly states 'Read-only', indicating no destructive effects. It also describes the return values. However, it does not mention any required permissions or potential side effects beyond the read-only nature, which is a minor gap.

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 moderately concise and front-loaded with the entity name. It provides essential information in two sentences. However, it contains some jargon ('x402-C C4 check') that may not be universally understood, slightly reducing clarity.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description provides all necessary context: purpose, parameter meanings, return values, and read-only nature. It is complete enough for an agent to use correctly without additional information.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so effectively by explaining that purchase_id is the offset reference ('offset_ref = purchase_id') and that required_g is the minimum grams to retire. This adds meaning beyond the schema's field titles.

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: to confirm a retirement meets a minimum gram requirement. It uses specific verbs and resources ('confirm a retirement', 'retires at least required_g grams'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like offsets__verify_certificate by focusing on retirement verification with a threshold.

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?

While the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, the context is clear: it is used to verify that a retirement offsets a specific amount of credits, which is distinct from other verification tools that focus on certificates or records. The purpose implies a specific use case, but lacks explicit exclusions.

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