Verify Agent Receipt

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

The description discloses that the tool is read-only and side-effect free, and details what success returns (valid=true with kind, receipt_id, tenant_id, normalized receipt) and failure behavior (clear verification error). This goes beyond the annotations which only indicate readOnlyHint=true.

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 well-structured and efficient, front-loading the core use case, providing clear exclusions, and then adding behavioral details. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy.

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 presence of an output schema and the complexity of the input (nested object), the description sufficiently covers the tool's behavior: it explains what the tool does, when to use it, and what to expect from success and failure. No gaps remain.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds value by specifying that the receipt parameter must be a complete signed object (not a string) and how to obtain it. The validity_tier parameter's description clarifies the context for each tier (operational, primary, attested) and advises that MCP handoff only requires operational.

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: verifying a signed paybond.agent_receipt_v1 JSON object via an offline Ed25519 signature check. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool paybond_verify_protocol_receipt_v1 by explicitly stating not to use it for protocol authorization/settlement receipts.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool (when you have a signed agent receipt) and when not to (for protocol receipts, directing to paybond_verify_protocol_receipt_v1). It also mentions that other audit surfaces are covered elsewhere.

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