Verify Paybond Capability

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

The description implies a read-only verification, but annotations have readOnlyHint=false, creating a contradiction. No additional behavioral traits are disclosed beyond the schema/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?

Two concise sentences that convey purpose, usage guidelines, and exclusions without any fluff.

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 output schema exists and the tool is relatively simple (4 params, no enums), the description covers the key aspects. However, the behavioral contradiction and lack of return value explanation slightly reduce completeness.

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% (all parameters have descriptions). The tool description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 is for 'raw capability-token verification for one tenant-bound Harbor intent', distinguishing it from siblings like paybond_authorize_agent_spend which is 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?

Explicitly tells when to use (capability-token verification) and when not to use (creating, funding, modifying intents), and points to an alternative tool (paybond_authorize_agent_spend).

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