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, and the description adds useful behavioral context: the evidence is signed and used for release, refund, review, and receipt generation, implying an audit trail. No contradictions with annotations.

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 consists of two concise sentences. The first sentence efficiently states the tool's purpose and context, and the second provides clear exclusions. No superfluous 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?

Despite having an output schema, the tool has 0% schema description coverage for its 5 parameters, including nested objects. The description does not explain what the parameters represent or how they relate to the audit-ready record, leaving significant gaps for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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 provides no explanation of parameters (e.g., intent_id, body, recognition_proof). It fails to add meaning beyond the JSON schema, leaving the agent uninformed about parameter semantics.

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 purpose: submitting signed evidence for a Paybond spend intent to ensure audit-ready records for release, refund, review, and receipt generation. It distinguishes from sibling tools like paybond_submit_evidence and paybond_submit_sandbox_guardrail_evidence by specifying 'spend evidence' and excluding 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?

The description explicitly says when to use ('when a Paybond spend intent needs signed evidence') and when not to use ('Do not use this to create or fund intents, and do not use it for sandbox guardrail evidence'), directly addressing usage context and alternatives.

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