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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, etc.), the description reveals key behavioral traits: the id is signed by the wallet receiving payment, making forgery and editing detectable. It also clarifies the limitation of the tool (does not validate correctness), which is valuable context not present in 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 reasonably concise and front-loaded with 'FREE.' It covers purpose, limitations, and an alternative in three sentences. The URL for paid feeds is tangential for an AI agent, but it does not significantly bloat the description.

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 tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema) and the annotations cover safety. The description supplies all necessary context: what it reads, how authenticity works, the free status, and the boundary against verify_decision. There are no significant gaps.

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?

The schema already describes the parameter format (pv1.<payload>.<signature>) with 100% coverage. The description adds meaning by explaining the security significance of the signature ('signed by the same wallet that receives payment'), which enriches understanding beyond the raw format.

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 function: 'Read what a Permit Verdict decision_id claims and check whether we actually issued it.' It uses specific verbs (read, check) and identifies the resource (decision_id). It also distinguishes itself from sibling verify_decision by explicitly saying it does not tell if the verdict is still correct.

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 usage guidance: it is free, requires no payment, and tells you the record is genuine. It explicitly states a when-not scenario: 'it does NOT tell you the verdict is still correct — use verify_decision for that,' pointing to the appropriate alternative.

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