Verify Paybond Capability

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

Annotations provide basic safety hints (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds context that it is for verification, not creation/modification, but does not elaborate on side effects, response behavior, or authentication requirements. The description does not contradict 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 is concise with two sentences, no redundant information, and the key purpose is front-loaded. Every sentence adds value.

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 an output schema present and annotations provided, the description adds sufficient context about usage. It explains the tool's role relative to siblings but could optionally mention the output structure or any preconditions beyond the sibling reference.

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 coverage is 100%, so all parameters have descriptions. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: raw capability-token verification for one tenant-bound Harbor intent. It distinguishes itself from creating, funding, or modifying intents, and explicitly mentions a sibling tool (paybond_authorize_agent_spend) for side-effecting actions.

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 when-to-use ('when you need raw capability-token verification') and when-not-to-use ('Do not use this to create, fund, or modify intents') guidance, along with an alternative tool ('use paybond_authorize_agent_spend as the clearer gate').

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