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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by enumerating what actually gets checked: the receipt, its hash, id, signature, chain link, superseding receipts, and the signing public key.

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?

A single sentence with the action and id format front-loaded, followed by the check list. The clause structure ('in public: the receipt, its hash, id, signature and chain link checked, the receipts that supersede it…') is slightly run-on and loses parallel form, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return shape, yet it usefully previews what verification covers. A note on failure behavior (what a failed verification looks like) would round out the picture for a 1-param, annotated read tool.

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 0%, so the description must carry the single parameter — and it does, giving both the meaning (a receipt id) and the expected 'pm_…' prefix. Nothing is added about the id's provenance or validity rules beyond that.

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 verb and resource ('Verify one receipt by id') plus a concrete id-format hint (pm_…), which separates it from list_receipts and write_receipt by implication. It never names a sibling or explicitly contrasts scope, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

'in public' signals the verification is a public, unauthenticated check, which is implied guidance about context. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not rule, and no routing to get_statement or list_receipts for other receipt needs.

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