paid-vs-delivered

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavior and does so by outlining the lesson's educational content: why HTTP 200 doesn't guarantee delivery, documented attack classes, and a practical verification flow. It does not disclose whether the tool is purely informational or requires any actions, but for a curriculum lesson this content overview is reasonable.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the curriculum identifier, and every clause adds meaningful detail about the lesson's focus. No redundant or filler content.

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 simple content-delivery tool with no parameters or output schema, the description covers the main educational points adequately. It could mention expected audience or relationship to adjacent lessons, but the sibling list and the 'Lesson 11' context supply that 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema vouches for everything. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed. Baseline of 4 applies for parameterless tools.

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 this is 'Lesson 11 of the curriculum' and specifies the unique topic: the distinction between HTTP 200 and actual delivery, five attack classes against x402, and a verification flow. It distinguishes itself from sibling lessons like 'what-is-x402' and 'verify-my-purchase' by focusing on the buyer-side verification context.

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 phrase 'Lesson 11 of the curriculum' implies sequential usage—the learner should proceed in order—but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this over alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The intended usage is inferable rather than stated.

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