verified__call_verified

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses key behaviors: idempotency (reuse of call_id returns cached result, downstream not double-called), tamper-evident receipt creation, and failure handling (receipted evidence). However, it does not detail side effects like the receipt chain's growth or potential authorization requirements, leaving some gaps.

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 relatively concise, with the core purpose in the first sentence and idempotency/failure details following. It avoids redundancy but could be more structured (e.g., bullet points for parameters). Still, it is front-loaded and efficient.

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 complexity (6 params, no output schema, idempotency, receipt chain), the description explains the intent and idempotency but lacks parameter details, return value format, and prerequisites (e.g., registration via register_service). It is adequate for a basic understanding but incomplete for autonomous invocation without further context.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It names some parameters indirectly (service_id, call_id) but does not describe tool, arguments, timeout_s, or payment_ref. Without this, agents may misuse or omit important parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema field names.

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 action: relaying a tool call to a registered MCP service and notarizing the exchange. It specifies the verb (relay, notarize) and the resource (tamper-evident receipt chain). The distinctive 'verified' branding and mention of idempotent receipts differentiate it from siblings like get_receipt or register_service.

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 useful context, including idempotency on call_id (replay safety) and that failures are recorded as receipts. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites like registering the service first. The guidance is good but not comprehensive.

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