Verify Protocol Receipt

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, confirming read operation. The description adds no additional behavioral details such as verification logic, failure modes, or response characteristics. Without further context, the agent must guess what verification entails.

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?

Single sentence, 13 words, no redundancy. However, the structure could be improved by separating the resource and method for clarity. Currently acceptable.

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 a complex nested input parameter, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the output contains or how to construct the receipt object. The tool name and description provide minimal context.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain the 'receipt' parameter. It only mentions 'protocol-v2 authorization or settlement receipt' without specifying expected structure, fields, or constraints. This is a critical gap for a required nested object.

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 specifies the action 'verify' and the resource 'protocol-v2 authorization or settlement receipt' with the method 'through the gateway'. It distinguishes from sibling tools that retrieve receipts rather than verify them.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like paybond_verify_agent_mandate_v1 or paybond_verify_capability. The description does not provide context about prerequisites or limitations.

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