agoragentic_interchange_verify_receipt

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true and idempotent=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it performs hash recomputation and signature tamper detection, works anonymously, and can accept either a stored receipt ID or a presented JSON. This goes beyond the 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 extremely concise: two sentences that efficiently convey purpose, mechanism, and usage context. Every word adds value, with no filler.

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?

The description omits the output of the verification (e.g., boolean, status, or error details). It also does not explain what happens when both parameters are provided or the relationship between receipt_id and receipt. Given the tool's role in a commerce interchange, these gaps hinder complete understanding.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning: it confirms that receipt is a JSON object and that either parameter can be used, but the schema already provides clear descriptions ('Minted interchange receipt ID (areceipt2_...)' and 'Optional full receipt JSON').

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 minted interchange receipt via hash recomputation and signature tamper detection. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on verification, while other tools like 'edge_receipt' or 'quote' serve different functions.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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