Verify Paybond Capability

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, but the description describes a verification operation that likely does not mutate state. However, it does not explicitly confirm idempotency or lack of side effects. No contradiction, but behavioral details are minimal.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose and usage boundaries. 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?

With 4 parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description should provide more parameter context. While output schema exists (so return format is covered), the description omits guidance on token format, operation values, or spend semantics. It is adequate but incomplete.

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%. The description only mentions 'one tenant-bound Harbor intent' but does not explain the meaning of individual parameters (intent_id, operation, token, requested_spend_cents). The agent needs more context to select values correctly.

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 explicitly states the tool performs 'raw capability-token verification for one tenant-bound Harbor intent', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from paybond_authorize_agent_spend by noting it as a 'clearer gate before side-effecting agent tools'.

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?

Provides clear guidance: 'Use this when you need raw capability-token verification' and explicitly states when not to use it: 'Do not use this to create, fund, or modify intents; use paybond_authorize_agent_spend as the clearer gate'. This includes an alternative tool.

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