verify_service

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the positive-only policy, that failures are kept private, the 30-day time-box, the public listing outcome, the ~3-minute duration, and the $0.02 automatic cost. This is unusually thorough for an unannotated tool.

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?

Every clause delivers actionable information: ownership requirement, audit nature, pass/fail behavior, validity period, allow-list endpoint, speed, and cost. The description is dense but each sentence earns its place, and the most important scoping information is front-loaded.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: purpose, inputs, conditional outcomes, duration, cost, and publication behavior. It could specify what the agent should expect as a response object or error condition, but the core calling context is complete enough for correct selection and invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that payto must be your own service's receiving address and that the audit is graph-based, which contextualizes how 'claimed_buyers' might be verified. It does not go into parameter-specific details, but the schema already handles those.

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 names a specific action ('submit your own service's payTo for a deep settlement-graph audit') with clear outcomes: a signed 30-day credential and inclusion on the public allow-list. The emphatic 'YOUR OWN service' distinguishes it from sibling tools like assess_counterparty, which likely evaluate other parties.

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 makes the intended use case explicit — use this to get your own service verified and allow-listed — and provides practical decision factors (positive-only, SLOW, costs $0.02). It does not name alternatives explicitly, but the ownership contrast with sibling names is implicit and sufficient.

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