Submit Spend Evidence

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-destructive. Description adds context about audit-record usage but does not discuss idempotency or side effects beyond that. No contradiction.

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 sentences, no redundant information, front-loaded with core purpose and exclusions.

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 has 5 parameters (3 required), nested objects, and an output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain the structure of body or recognition_proof, nor the output. More details on evidence format and prerequisites are needed.

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%, and the description does not explain any parameters. It mentions 'signed evidence' but does not map to parameters like intent_id, body, recognition_proof. The description fails to compensate for missing schema descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states the tool's purpose: submitting signed evidence for a Paybond spend intent. It distinguishes from creating/funding intents and sandbox guardrail evidence, aligning with sibling tools like paybond_create_spend_intent and paybond_submit_sandbox_guardrail_evidence.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (when a spend intent needs signed evidence) and when not to use (not for creating/funding intents, not for sandbox guardrail evidence). Provides clear exclusions.

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