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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and delivers rich behavioral detail: it lists all ZIP components, states that 'any pending events are rolled into a final block first', explains offline verification, and describes the summary grading scheme.

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 focused paragraphs: first the package contents, then verification + summary behavior. It is slightly dense but every sentence adds information; no fluff.

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?

For a tool with only 2 params and no output schema, the description is largely complete in explaining behavior and output contents. However, the unexplained 'format' parameter prevents a higher score, and the return value (e.g., ZIP file location) is not addressed.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must explain parameters, but it only mentions the AIT implicitly ('for an AIT') and never explains the 'format' enum (full vs summary), leaving a significant gap for one of the two parameters.

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 names a specific verb ('Assembles') and resource ('ATAP v0.1 §7.5 Receipt ZIP for an AIT'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling verification/lookup tools by detailing the ZIP's full contents and offline verification purpose.

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 clearly communicates what the tool produces and how to use the output ('unpack it and run verify.sh'), but does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools like generate_receipt, get_receipt, or verify_receipt, leaving the 'when to use vs alternatives' implicit.

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