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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds real context beyond them: the receipt is public, hash-chained, includes a sha256 fingerprint of the poem text, tracks whether it changed, and points to the full ledger at /ledger.jsonl. It does not discuss error behavior for an unknown id, which is a minor gap.

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?

Delivered as a single front-loaded sentence listing the receipt's contents, with no filler. It is slightly dense and could be split for readability, but every clause carries 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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing returns — and it does so well by enumerating the brief, delivered poem with fingerprint, change flag, and commissioner's verdict, plus the ledger location. A note on behavior for a missing id would complete it.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the id and its format. The description adds no additional semantics about the id beyond what the schema provides, which matches the baseline for fully-covered single-param schemas.

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?

States a specific resource (the public receipt of a commissioned poem) and enumerates its contents — brief, delivered poem with sha256 fingerprint, change status, commissioner's verdict. This clearly separates it from a bare poem fetch, though it never explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like commission_status or commission_poem.

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 phrase 'for anyone to audit' hints at intent, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when to prefer this over commission_status or commission_poem, and no prerequisites. The agent must infer routing from the sibling names alone.

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