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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context by stating that no wallet transfer is created or repeated, and that it operates on an already-submitted transaction against a boundary. It does not disclose failure modes or detailed side effects, but the added constraint is meaningful.

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 two sentences with the main action front-loaded ('Verify an already-submitted Base transaction...'). The second sentence states a critical limitation concisely. No fluff or redundant information.

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 provides a clear high-level operation but does not specify the return value/output, error handling, or how the released report is delivered (e.g., whether get_report is needed afterward). With no output schema, this leaves ambiguity. It also assumes knowledge of 'prepared exact-payment boundary' without further explanation.

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 description coverage is only 33% because only reportToken has a description; jobId and transaction are described only via patterns. The description does not explain jobId or the format/role of transaction beyond calling it a Base transaction, and it does not compensate for the low schema coverage. The reference to the 'prepared exact-payment boundary' adds a bit of context to transaction, but it is not enough.

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 verifies an already-submitted Base transaction against the prepared exact-payment boundary and releases its report. It also explicitly says it cannot create or repeat a wallet transfer, which distinguishes it from siblings like prepare_checkout and create_quote.

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 implies usage after prepare_checkout by referencing an 'already-submitted' Base transaction and a 'prepared exact-payment boundary,' and the schema's reportToken description mentions prepare_checkout. It also states a key exclusion: it cannot create or repeat a wallet transfer. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when to use get_report afterward.

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